EFTA Document EFTA01266350
THIRD AMENDMENT TO RESTATED TRUST THE JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 2001 TRUST TWO I am the Grantor of THE JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 2001 TRUST TWO ("the trust"). Pursuant to Article TWELFTH of the trust, I have the power to amend the trust. The trust was amended and restated on March 8, 2002 and was further amended on January 13, 2004 and December 3, 2004. I hereby make this THIRD AMENDMENT to the Restated Trust as follows: FIRST I hereby delete Article FIRST of the trust and substitute in its place
Summary
THIRD AMENDMENT TO RESTATED TRUST THE JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 2001 TRUST TWO I am the Grantor of THE JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 2001 TRUST TWO ("the trust"). Pursuant to Article TWELFTH of the trust, I have the power to amend the trust. The trust was amended and restated on March 8, 2002 and was further amended on January 13, 2004 and December 3, 2004. I hereby make this THIRD AMENDMENT to the Restated Trust as follows: FIRST I hereby delete Article FIRST of the trust and substitute in its place
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (1)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
6016686Link to Specific Page
Share a direct link to a specific page in this document:
https://epsteinexposed.com/documents/sd-10-EFTA01266350?page=[page_number]Related Documents (6)
Jeffrey Epstein & Jean‑Luc Brunel sued for alleged $1 M payment, obstruction of justice, and defamation – links to high‑profile figures
Jeffrey Epstein & Jean‑Luc Brunel sued for alleged $1 M payment, obstruction of justice, and defamation – links to high‑profile figures The filing contains concrete allegations that Jeffrey Epstein gave Jean‑Luc Brunel a $1 million wire transfer, that Epstein directed Brunel to flee to avoid deposition, and that both men disseminated false online statements damaging Brunel’s modeling business. It also references other powerful individuals (Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell) and mentions a federal investigation into a non‑prosecution agreement, providing multiple actionable leads (financial flow, obstruction of justice, defamation, foreign influence). The combination of specific monetary figures, named actors, and ongoing litigation makes this a high‑impact lead. Key insights: Complaint alleges Epstein paid Brunel $1 million in 2004/2005 to help launch MC2 modeling agency.; Brunel claims Epstein instructed him to leave Palm Beach to avoid a criminal deposition, constituting obstruction of justice.; Defendants (Epstein, Tyler McDonald/Yi.Org) are accused of publishing false online links tying Brunel’s agency to escort services, causing loss of millions in revenue.
Jeffrey Epstein & Jean‑Luc Brunel sued for alleged $1 M payment, obstruction of justice, and defamation – links to high‑profile figures
The filing contains concrete allegations that Jeffrey Epstein gave Jean‑Luc Brunel a $1 million wire transfer, that Epstein directed Brunel to flee to avoid deposition, and that both men disseminated Complaint alleges Epstein paid Brunel $1 million in 2004/2005 to help launch MC2 modeling agency. Brunel claims Epstein instructed him to leave Palm Beach to avoid a criminal deposition, constitutin
THIRD AMENDMENT TO RESTATED TRUST
DOJ EFTA Data Set 10 document EFTA01266350
Plaintiffs seek to unseal court filings alleging sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz in [REDACTED - Survivor] defamation case
Plaintiffs seek to unseal court filings alleging sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz in [REDACTED - Survivor] defamation case The passage reveals a motion to keep certain filings confidential that contain allegations of sexual abuse by a high‑profile attorney, Alan Dershowitz, on behalf of [REDACTED - Survivor]. While it identifies a potential lead—unsealing these records could provide evidence of misconduct—it lacks concrete details such as dates of alleged abuse, financial transactions, or direct links to powerful political figures. The controversy is moderate, and the novelty is limited given the public nature of the Dershowitz‑Giuffre allegations. Key insights: Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell filed a response to Dershowitz’s motion to keep records confidential.; The contested records are three filings that recount [REDACTED - Survivor]’s allegations of sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz.; Plaintiffs argue the filings are not confidential and should be part of the public record in the defamation case.
[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
Epstein Investigation Files Reveal Potential High‑Level Collusion, Suppressed Evidence, and Questionable Plea Deal
Epstein Investigation Files Reveal Potential High‑Level Collusion, Suppressed Evidence, and Questionable Plea Deal The document contains multiple concrete leads that, if verified, tie a roster of powerful individuals—including Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Ted Kennedy, and others—to Jeffrey Epstein’s illegal activities or to the suppression of evidence. It also details alleged misconduct by the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office, the involvement of high‑ranking lawyers (Dershowitz, Starr, Lefkowitz) in shaping a non‑prosecution agreement, and a possible extortion scheme by former Epstein employee Alfredo Rodriguez. These points suggest actionable investigative steps (e.g., subpoenaing Rodriguez’s notebook, tracing the alleged $50,000 payment, reviewing the non‑prosecution agreement, interviewing the listed high‑profile contacts). The controversy is extreme, the information is largely unpublished in this detail, and it implicates senior officials and political figures, meeting the criteria for a high‑impact lead. Key insights: Alfredo Rodriguez possessed a bound notebook containing names, addresses, and phone numbers of dozens of high‑profile individuals (Kissinger, Jagger, Hoffmann, Koch, Ted Kennedy, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak).; Rodriguez attempted to sell this notebook to an undercover FBI operative for $50,000, indicating possible extortion and obstruction of justice.; State Attorney Barry Krischer negotiated a non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) that granted immunity to co‑conspirators, including Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova, while limiting charges against Epstein.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.