Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00206619DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Joint Stipulation Plaintiff, JANE DOE and Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), hereby file their Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Correspondence Obtained By Jane Doe's attorneys during discovery, and each state: I. In July 2010, the law firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, PL. (the "Law Finn"), Paul G. Cassell, Esq. and Jay Howell, Esq. ("Counsel") received through discovery certain correspondence and documents (including content thereof) between Epstein's attomeys/agents and federal prosecutors (the "Correspondence"). 2. Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether the Correspondence is confidential. 3.

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00206619
Pages
5
Persons
4
Integrity

Summary

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Joint Stipulation Plaintiff, JANE DOE and Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), hereby file their Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Correspondence Obtained By Jane Doe's attorneys during discovery, and each state: I. In July 2010, the law firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, PL. (the "Law Finn"), Paul G. Cassell, Esq. and Jay Howell, Esq. ("Counsel") received through discovery certain correspondence and documents (including content thereof) between Epstein's attomeys/agents and federal prosecutors (the "Correspondence"). 2. Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether the Correspondence is confidential. 3.

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Joint Stipulation Plaintiff, JANE DOE and Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), hereby file their Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Correspondence Obtained By Jane Doe's attorneys during discovery, and each state: I. In July 2010, the law firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, PL. (the "Law Finn"), Paul G. Cassell, Esq. and Jay Howell, Esq. ("Counsel") received through discovery certain correspondence and documents (including content thereof) between Epstein's attomeys/agents and federal prosecutors (the "Correspondence"). 2. Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether the Correspondence is confidential. 3. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Addenda to Settlement Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matters of L,M. vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028051 JODOCMB AB and E.W. vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028058 XXXXMB AB, Counsel may wish to use the Correspondence in pending cases of Epstein v, Rothstein, CASE NO. 502009CA040800/OOOCMB AO and In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2, CASE 1 EXHIBIT EFTA00206619 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 2 of 3 NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critton, Jr. at [email protected] and Michael J. Pike at [email protected]) of their intent to use or provide the Correspondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under seal. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice. If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may file the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court is in a position to rule on the objection. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant requests that the Court enter an order on the above stipulation and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Local Rule 7.1 Statement Pursuant to the above rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiff's counsel have conferred and have agreed to same. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Robert D. Critton. Jr. ROBERT D. CRITFON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 2 EFTA00206620 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 3 of 3 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this 19th day of July, 2010: Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hoc Vice o-counse or at Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbtuy Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. By: la Robert P. Critton. Jr. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike@bclolawicom BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 3 EFTA00206621 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 — MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Order Adopting and Entering Joint Stint*'teflon This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff; Jane Doe, and Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Joint Stipulation, and counsel being in agreement with the entry of the Stipulation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 1. The Joint Stipulation is hereby Adopted and Entered. 2. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Addenda to Settlement Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matters of L.M. vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028051 )OOCXMB AB and E.W. vs. Epstein CASE NO. 502008 CA028058 XXXXMB AB, Counsel may wish to use the Correspondence in pending cases of Epstein v. Rothstein, CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG and In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2, CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Conewondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to EFTA00206622 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 2 of 2 Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critton, Jr. at rcrit@belclaw,cont and Michael J. Pike at [email protected]) of their intent to use or provide the Correspondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under seal. 3. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice. If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may file the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court is in a position to rule on the objection. DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010. Limns R. Johnson United States Magistrate Judge Courtesy Copies: Judge Kenneth Marra Counsel of Record EFTA00206623

Technical Artifacts (5)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Related Documents (6)

House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

[REDACTED - Survivor] v. Alan Dershowitz – Allegations of Sex Trafficking, NPA Manipulation, and Defamation

The complaint provides a dense web of alleged connections between Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, and the 2008 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA). It cites specif Roberts alleges she was trafficked by Epstein from 2000‑2002 and forced to have sex with Dershowitz. Dershowitz is accused of helping draft and pressure the government into the 2008 NPA that shielded

87p
House OversightUnknown

Jeffrey Epstein non‑prosecution agreement and alleged high‑level connections revealed in multiple Palm Beach filings

Jeffrey Epstein non‑prosecution agreement and alleged high‑level connections revealed in multiple Palm Beach filings The passage aggregates numerous contemporaneous reports about a secret non‑prosecution agreement that allowed billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to avoid federal charges, mentions specific federal actors (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, Assistant U.S. Attorneys), and lists a roster of powerful individuals allegedly on Epstein’s private jet (Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, Andrés Pastrana, Lawrence Summers, Ron Burkle, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker). It also cites procedural irregularities, victim exclusion, and potential immunity for co‑conspirators. These details provide concrete leads – names, dates, court actions, and alleged financial flows – that merit further investigation into possible prosecutorial misconduct, quid‑pro quo arrangements, and foreign‑political influence. Key insights: Sealed non‑prosecution agreement between Epstein and U.S. Attorney's Office (2007‑2008) prevented federal charges.; Agreement granted immunity to co‑conspirators Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, Nadia Marcinkova.; Victims were not consulted; attorneys claim the deal is unprecedented for an individual.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

J. MICHAEL BURMAN. RA'

18p
OtherUnknown

NAME SEARCHED: Jeffrey Epstein

DOJ EFTA Data Set 10 document EFTA01296720

114p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01660040

37p
House OversightJan 17, 2014

Bradley Edwards’ Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein’s Summary Judgment Motion – Claims of Abuse of Process, Witness Tampering, and Links to High‑Profile Figures

Bradley Edwards’ Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein’s Summary Judgment Motion – Claims of Abuse of Process, Witness Tampering, and Links to High‑Profile Figures The filing enumerates numerous specific leads that, if verified, tie Jeffrey Epstein to a wide network of powerful individuals (Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell, etc.) and to alleged obstruction of federal investigations, witness intimidation, and a non‑prosecution agreement. It also references concrete documents (exhibits, deposition excerpts, flight logs, FBI emails) that could be pursued for forensic analysis, discovery requests, or FOIA requests. The combination of high‑profile actors, alleged criminal conduct, and detailed procedural allegations makes this a strong investigative lead. Key insights: Edwards alleges Epstein invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering substantive questions, creating adverse inferences.; The motion cites a “Holy Grail” journal allegedly listing underage victims and high‑profile contacts (Trump, Clinton, etc.).; Claims that Epstein’s attorneys (including Alan Dershowitz) may have helped suppress victim testimony and influence the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.