Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 1 of 5

Date

Unknown

Source

DOJ Data Set 9

Reference

efta-efta00607173

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0upvotesShare

Post Reddit

Save Post Watch

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00607173 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 2 of 5 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRAIJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 2 EFTA00607174 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 3 of 5 Defendants. DOE II, CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jane Doe. No 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order (DE 113) and Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Notice of Joinder in Plaintiffs' Motion (DE 145). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, and replies (DE's 113, 127, 136, 145, 3 EFTA00607175 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 4 of 5 233), and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiffs seek a Court order prohibiting Defendant or his agents from communicating with Plaintiffs directly or indirectly. Defendant. Defendant opposes the request as "needless, unwarranted and excessive." (DE 127 at 5). Nonetheless, Defendant states in his response that "neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to have any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients." (DE 127 at 4). The Court notes that Defendant is already under court order not to have direct or indirect contact with any victims. See Transcript of Plea Conference at 20. During the course of Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2009, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio explicitly instructed Defendant as follows: Court: Okay. D is, you shall not have any contact with the victim, arc there more than one victim? Ms. Belohlavek: There's several. Court: Several, all of the victims. So this should be plural. I'm making that plural. You are not to have any contact direct or indirect, and in this day and age I find it necessary to go over exactly what we mean by indirect. By indirect, we mean no text messages, no e-mail, no Face Book, no My Space, no telephone calls, no voice mails, no messages through carrier pigeon, no messages through third parties, no hey would you tell so and so for me, no having a friend, acquaintance or stranger approach any of these victims with a message of any sort from you, is that clear? Defendant: Yes, ma'am. Id. at 20-21. In light of Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for no contact order, suggesting that the state court's order only applies to some victims and that parties are always allowed to contact each other directly, the Court finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this 4 EFTA00607176 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 5 of 5 court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs, regardless of the intended scope of the state court's order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Plaintiffs Jane Doe. No 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order (DE 113) is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby prohibited from communicating with all plaintiffs directly or indirectly', either personally or through agents, except that Defendant may communicate with plaintiffs only through plaintiffs' attorneys of record, for the duration of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 31' day of July, 2009 KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 'See infra, excerpt of Transcript of Plea Conference at 20-21, for examples of indirect contact. 5 EFTA00607177

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Case #9:08-CV-80119-KAM

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

(USAFLS)

(USAFLS) From: Roy Black < Sent: Wednesda , Februa 11, 2015 8:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Your phone call Great. Speak to you then. Original Message From: (USAFLS) Imailt Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:49 AM To: Roy Black Subject: Re: Your phone call Hi Roy. Thanks for your message. Dexter wants to participate in the call so it is helpful to have a roadmap of the discussion points. We will call your office at 2:00. If there is a better number to call, just shoot me an email. Talk to you soon. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:35 PM, "Roy Black" < mailto: wrote: Marie I was not calling you about the correspondence so don't worry about that. I called you to discuss the plaintiff's replies filed as dockets 310 and 311. We think there are serious misstatements by them in these pleadings. So I just wanted to let you know what our suggested responses are.

389p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05:14:2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00222605 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plain

DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 206 Entered on FLSD Docket 0716/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00214072 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 206 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plai

House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Document alleges Alexander Acosta’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein plea deal and potential immunity for co‑conspirators

The passage links a former U.S. Labor Secretary (Alexander Acosta) to the negotiation of Epstein’s 2007 non‑prosecution agreement, suggesting possible misconduct and abuse of power. It also mentions A Acosta personally involved in negotiations of Epstein’s 2007 plea deal granting immunity from federa Deal included a 13‑month private jail sentence for Epstein in exchange for cooperation. Acosta lat

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Donate More ways to support →

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.