From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov" <[email protected]>
Summary
From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov" <[email protected]> To: "flsd_cmecf [email protected]" <flsd_cmecf notice®flsd.uscourts.gov> Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Doe No. 5 1 Epstein Motion for Summary Judgment Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 21:21:04 +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
Persons Referenced (3)
“...ciclaw.com Robert Deweese Critton , Jr [email protected], [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 9:08-cv-80381...”
Jeffrey Epstein“...2010 Case Name: Doe No. 5 1 Epstein Case Number: 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Filer: Jeffrey Epstein Document Number: 139 Docket Text: Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment including Supporting Memora...”
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
From: '
From: ' To:' Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe v. Epstein Response in Opposition to Motion Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:47:18 +0000 Importance: Normal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CMIECF 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 io‘ing. 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 Kudman, Tama on 3/12/2010 at 5:47 PM EST and
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05:19/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS CO-COUNSEL LEWIS TEIN, P.L. hereby moves for leave to withdraw as co-counsel for defendant Jeffrey Epstein, stating as follows: 1. On December 30, 2008, Lewis Tein filed its notice of withdrawal as counsel for Mr. Epstein [DE 53], noting that two other law firms who previously entered their appearance on Mr. Epstein's behalf would remain as co-counsel. 2. We have since learned through discussions with the Clerk of Court that absent a formal order of withdrawal by this Court, Lewis Tein will continue to be listed as counsel for Mr. Epstein on the CM/ECF. 3. Accordingly, Lewis Tein respectfully requests that this Court enter an order allowing it to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Epstein. Lewis 'reins.
From: '
From: ' II < > To:' , Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe I Epstein Motion for Leave to File Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:49:57 +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 4/6/2010 at 9:49 AM EDT
From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov" <cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov>
From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov" <cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov> To: "flsd_cmecf notice®flsd.uscourts.gov" <flsd_cmecf notice®flsd.uscourts.gov> Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe I Epstein Notice (Other) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:41:01 +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
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
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
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.