This document set consists primarily of 'Deleted Page Information Sheets' indicating that 515 pages of records have been withheld from the release, citing Grand Jury secrecy (b3-1) and privacy (b6, b7C). The visible content includes three FBI FD-340 forms (Receipt for Property) dated April 9, 2008. These receipts document the FBI's Miami/Palm Beach office receiving 'Subpoena Results for telephone #' (number redacted). The 'Grand Jury Material' box is checked on the receipts.
These documents consist of FBI internal communications and payment requests concerning the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein between 2006 and 2008. The records detail the opening of forfeiture sub-files, expenses for title searches and corporate records, and coordination with AUSA Antonia Barnes. Crucially, a memo dated September 18, 2008, explicitly states that the FBI would not pursue federal prosecution because Epstein was complying with his State of Florida plea deal and had 'provided information to the FBI as agreed upon,' leading to the closure of the forfeiture sub-file.
This document contains a 'Deleted Page Information Sheet' listing 515 pages withheld entirely from the release under FOIA exemptions (likely Grand Jury and Privacy). The visible pages contain copies of an FBI '1A Envelope' and FD-340 'Receipt for Property' forms dated April 19, 2008. These forms document the FBI's receipt of 'Subpoena Results for telephone #' under Case ID 31E-MM-108062 (the primary Epstein investigation code) by the Miami Field Office/Palm Beach Resident Agency.
This document is an amended application to the US Supreme Court requesting a 45-day extension for Ghislaine Maxwell to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Her new attorney, David Oscar Markus, cites his recent retention and conflicting trial schedules as reasons for the delay. The application highlights a legal question regarding a circuit split on whether plea agreements are binding on federal prosecutors across different districts.
This document is a Certificate of Service filed in the Supreme Court of the United States, indicating that on January 15, 2025, Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel, David Oscar Markus, served an Application for Extension of Time to File Certiorari Petition to the Solicitor General of the United States. The document provides contact information for Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel and the address of the Department of Justice.
This document is a court order dated July 1, 2010, from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Peter R. Palermo grants the plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling of a settlement conference set for July 6, 2010, to ensure Jane Doe does not come into contact with Epstein, citing existing no-contact orders. The order stipulates specific arrival times for Epstein (8:30 AM), dismissal procedures, and explicitly forbids communication or harassment between the parties.
This document is a Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Quash Service of Process. The plaintiff, M.J., argues that service was properly effected on October 8, 2010, when a private investigator handed the papers to an employee named 'Mark' at Epstein's New York mansion. The filing accuses Epstein and his associate Richard Barnett of fraud and perjury for submitting an affidavit claiming service never occurred, and details a pattern of obstruction by Epstein and his associates (including Ghislaine Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel) in similar civil cases.
A legal motion filed on November 10, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting the court to quash service of process in the case of M.J. v. Epstein. The defense argues that leaving an unmarked envelope in the mailbox of Epstein's New York vacation home and claiming to leave papers with a non-existent person named 'Mark' violates Federal, New York, and Florida service laws. The document includes arguments citing specific statutes and an affidavit from Richard Barnett denying the presence of anyone named 'Mark' at the residence.
This document is a Motion to Quash Service of Process filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on October 29, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's lawyers argue that the plaintiff, 'M.J.', failed to properly serve Epstein with the lawsuit because the documents were merely left in an unmarked envelope in the mailbox of his New York residence (9 East 71st Street) rather than being delivered personally as required by law. The document details the specific dates of the attempted service and cites Florida, New York, and Federal laws to support the argument that the service was legally ineffective.
This document is a 'Motion to Proceed Anonymously' filed on July 24, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-81092). The plaintiff, identified as 'L.M.', is a 20-year-old female alleging she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein between the ages of 14 and 17. The motion argues that her identity should be protected due to the sensitive nature of the allegations and notes she was previously identified as a victim by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office in a criminal investigation against Epstein.
This document is a declaration by FBI Special Agent Timothy R. Slater, executed in 2015, detailing his involvement in the 2006-2007 investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Slater describes locating and calling a potential victim (whose name is redacted) in early 2007 while accompanied by lead agent Nesbitt E. Kuyrkendall. During the call, the woman confirmed knowing Epstein but refused to cooperate, stating she had moved away to distance herself and wanted to leave the situation in her past.
This document is a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on April 8, 2016, in a Florida Circuit Court case between Bradley J. Edwards/Paul G. Cassell and Alan M. Dershowitz. The plaintiffs withdraw their motion pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement but explicitly state that their client, Virginia Giuffre, reaffirms her allegations and that the withdrawal is not an admission that her allegations were mistaken. They concede that filing certain allegations in a separate Crime Victims' Rights Act case was a 'tactical mistake' that caused distractions.
This document is a civil complaint filed on January 6, 2015, in Broward County, Florida, by attorneys Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell against Alan M. Dershowitz. The plaintiffs allege that Dershowitz defamed them in media interviews (specifically on CNN) by accusing them of misconduct and lying after they filed court pleadings alleging Dershowitz participated in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct. The complaint asserts that Dershowitz's statements were false, malicious, and intended to distract from his own alleged involvement in Epstein's crimes and the negotiation of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement.
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Plaintiffs (Jane Does 2-8) in response to Jeffrey Epstein's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's order compelling him to produce his income tax returns for the years 2003-2008. The Plaintiffs argue that the tax returns are relevant for determining punitive damages and are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing the 'required records' exception. The document also notes Epstein's attempt to avoid producing records by offering to stipulate to a net worth in the 'nine figures,' which the Plaintiffs reject as insufficient.
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on July 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs 'Jane Does 2-7' against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs allege that Epstein hired private investigators to harass and intimidate them by contacting their former employers, ex-boyfriends, and friends to ask intrusive personal questions and potentially 'out' them as sexual abuse victims. The motion seeks a court order to stop Epstein's investigators from making ex parte contacts with nonparties associated with the plaintiffs.
This document is a Motion to File Under Seal submitted by defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen on July 25, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe v. Epstein et al. The defendants request to seal their 'motion for stay' to protect a confidential agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The document includes certificates of compliance and service, noting that the plaintiff opposes the motion, and lists the legal counsel representing all parties involved.
This document is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Haley Robson, seeking to move a civil lawsuit filed by Jane Doe from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The defendants argue that the non-diverse defendant, Haley Robson, was fraudulently joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal. Attached as Exhibit A is a deposition transcript of Jane Doe (whose name is redacted) taken on February 20, 2008, in a related criminal case, where she is questioned about her age, MySpace profiles, inconsistencies in her statements to police regarding sexual contact with Epstein, and her interactions with various attorneys and law enforcement officials.
This document is a legal memorandum filed on February 13, 2008, by the attorneys for Jane Doe No. 1 and her father in the case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-80069). The plaintiffs oppose a motion filed by Jane Doe's mother, Dawn LaVogue Sandberg, who sought to stay the proceedings until the minor plaintiff reached the age of majority. The plaintiffs argue that the mother's motion is procedurally defective, was not properly served on the defendant (Epstein), and that the mother lacks standing because the father has full legal custody of the child. The document emphasizes that the lawsuit concerns the sexual assault of Jane Doe No. 1 by Epstein when she was 14 years old.
This document is an unopposed motion filed on December 3, 2009, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 8 in the Southern District of Florida, requesting an extension of time until December 14, 2009, to file an Amended Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein. The request cites obligations of the plaintiff's counsel, Stuart Mermelstein and Adam Horowitz, in other matters, including other Epstein cases. The defendant's counsel, identified in the service list as Jack Alan Goldberger and Robert D. Critton, did not object to the extension.
Legal motion filed on August 11, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida, requesting to consolidate the case of Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein with the lead case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein for discovery purposes. The document states that the case involves alleged sexual abuse in Palm Beach, Florida, in 2001. The motion was unopposed by the Defendant's counsel.
A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated April 1, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309). The order grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer the case to Judge Marra's Division to be consolidated with eleven similar pending actions under the lead case Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-80119).
This document is a 'Notice of Joinder' filed on June 8, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join a motion for a no-contact order against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing alleges that Epstein's associate and recruiter, Hayley Robson, has been harassing victims Jane Does 4 and 7 through text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by and cooperating with Epstein. The plaintiffs request a court order prohibiting Epstein from any direct or indirect contact with the victims.
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.
This document is a 'Notice of Joinder' filed on June 8, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join a motion for a 'No-Contact Order' against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing alleges that Epstein's associate, Hayley Robson (who originally recruited the victims), has been harassing Jane Does 4 and 7 via text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by Epstein. The plaintiffs argue that a court order is necessary to prevent Epstein from contacting or harassing victims through third parties like Robson.
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 11, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida (Case 10-80447) by Plaintiff C.L. requesting a 10-day extension to respond to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss. The extension was requested because Plaintiff's counsel, Spencer T. Kuvin, had a conflicting trial starting the same day in Palm Beach Civil Circuit Court. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing Epstein's legal team (Critton, Pike, Goldberger) and a proposed order for Judge Kenneth A. Marra to sign.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity