Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00880972DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00880972
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> To: Martin Weinberg Subject: Re: Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:03:42 +0000 add HAD AT THE VERY SAME TIME TO MAKE CLEAR added this fn before conclusion upon receiving Bob's info on Jane Doe II: FN — That Jane Doe 101 did not meet the threshold requirements for the imposition of the waiver of liability portion of par 8 of the NPA is demonstrated by the filings of Jane Doe II in 09-80469-CIV-Marra, a federal lawsuit bring "exclusively 2255" claims while Jane Doe II had AT THE VERY SAME TIME a separate state court suit seeking damages against Epstein for sexual assault and conspiracy. Jane Doe II first claimed the benefits of the NPA but then withdrew that claim at the June 12, 2009 hearing agreeing that the state filing negated the "exclusivity" of the federal 2255 lawsuit. On the current record, nothing prevents Jane Doe 101 from filing a parallel state court claim thus she has not, by affirmative waiver filed before the challenged Motion to Dismiss, committed herself to a litigation strategy that would potentially qualify her for the waiver of liability obligation On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Martin Weinberg < wrote: I added this fn before conclusion upon receiving Bob's info on Jane Doe II: FN - That Jane Doe 101 did not meet the threshold requirements for the imposition of the waiver of liability portion of par 8 of the NPA is demonstrated by the filings of Jane Doe II in 09-80469-CIV-Marra, a federal lawsuit bring "exclusively 2255" claims while Jane Doe II had a separate state court suit seeking damages against Epstein for sexual assault and conspiracy. Jane Doe II first claimed the benefits of the NPA but then withdrew that claim at the June 12, 2009 hearing agreeing that the state filing negated the "exclusivity" of the federal 2255 lawsuit. On the current record, nothing prevents Jane Doe 101 from filing a parallel state court claim thus she has not, by affirmative waiver filed before the challenged Motion to Dismiss, committed herself to a litigation strategy that would potentially qualify her for the waiver of liability obligation From: Jeffrey Epstein To: Martin Weinberg • Jay Lefkowitz • Darren Indyke Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:44 AM EFTA00880972

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Forum Discussions

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

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