EFTA00723522.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA S CASE NO: Plaintiff, 50200SCA037319XXXXMB AB vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO IDENTIFY Plaintiff, M. files this Response to Epstein's Motion for Sanctions and to Identify. introduction Apparently Epstein and his counsel do not have a problem with press, they just have a problem with bad press. To put the quotes cited by defense in their motion in context, the court must also see some of the numerous quotes given by Epstein's defense team. "These women are liars. We've established that " "It was just a childish performance by the Palm Beach Police Department " - Any. Jack Goldberger, August 8, 2006, Palm Beach Post. (Ex. I). "There was never any victims." (sic) - Any. Jack Goldberger, July 23, 2009, Palm Beach Post. (Ex. 2). EFTA00723522  "...because the craziness of this police chief we have the charge ofsolicitation." - Atty. Gerald Lefcourti, July 27, 2006, New York Post (Ex. 3). "He never denied girls came to the house," Goldberger said. But when Epstein was given a polygraph test, "he passed on knowledge of age," the attorney said. - Atty. Jack Goldberger, July 29, 2006, Palm Beach Post (Ex. 4). "Defense attorney Jack Goldberger maintains that not only did Epstein pass a polygraph test showing he did not know the girls were minors, but their stories weren't credible." - Atty. Jack Goldberger, Aug. 5, 2006, Palm Beach Post (Ex. 5). "There was never any sex between Jeffrey Epstein and any underage women," his lead attorney, Jack Goldberger, said from Idaho where he was vacationing with his family. Epstein did have young women come to his house to give him massages, Goldberger said, "Mr. Epstein absolutely insisted anybody who came to his house be over the age of 18. How he verified that, 1 don't know. The question is did anything illegal occur. The law was not violated here." - Atty. Jack Goldberger, Aug. 8, 2006, Palm Beach Post (Ex. 1). The quotes above are just a few of the numerous quotes and information provided directly to the press and media by Epstein's litigation team over a two year period before Plaintiff S ever filed suit. In fact, as mentioned in the story, attorney Goldberger was so eager for media attention and publicity that the quotes in the first article cited were given while he was on vacation with his family in Idaho. (See Ex. I). After the instant civil suit was filed, Epstein's mob of attorneys and press agents continued to pepper the media with their "version" of the story. I Gerald Lefrourt isAvas one of Epstein's attorneys in New York. Page 2 of 15 EFTA00723523  "Are these comments not prejudicial to the administration of justice? Clearly, these comments, without supporting evidence, are nothing more than hyperbole and would never reach a jury. Nonetheless, [Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Lefcourt] chose to make the comments in an effort to prejudice....[the girls in this case]." "[Epstein's attorneys] forget their attorney oath which reads, in pertinent part: `I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause for which I am charged....[Mr. Epstein's attorneys] took this oath; however, [their] publicity seems more important than the very oath [they] swore to uphold." Above are direct quotes from Defendant's Motion for Sanctions filed in this case. (See Motion for Sanctions p. 4-5). Plaintiff has merely switched the names of the parties. Are these quotes not just as appropriate if applied to the comments made by Epstein's attorneys? When reading Epstein's current motion for sanctions, the often quoted phrases, "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and "the pot calling the kettle black" come to mind. These quotes were merely the beginning of the publicity junket that has continued through today, with not only Epstein's criminal attorneys, but also his civil attorneys, such as Robert Critton. Epstein's team of attorneys utilized the press and media in a clear attempt to bias public opinion against his victims. Now that the victims and their attorneys are attempting to speak out, it would be a miscarriage of justice to sanction and silence the victims while the admitted criminal is allowed unfettered access to the press to pitch his cause.2 2 While Defendant's counsel takes issue with the branding of Mr. Epstein a "criminal", the facts and public record is a show that his has plead guilty to Ipirocuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution; F.S. 796.03" and he registered Sex Offender as a result. (See Ex. 6). Furthermore, when comparing this plea to Goldberger's statement to the press in Ex. I this shows that Goldberger either permitted his client to plead guilty to a charge he did not believe his client committed, or he flat out lied to the press. Undersigned counsel is merely a civil litigator and does not handle criminal matters, but surely one of these two options is likely unethical. Page 3 of 15 EFTA00723524  Memorandum of Law Epstein identifies four separate issues as the foundation of his Motion: 1. The Egg Shaped Penis deposition; 2. The non-prosecution agreement, and quotes regarding same; 3. Five various news articles; 4. The Goldberger Affidavit. In addition, Defendant appears to throw in as an after-thought the argument that as a result of undersigned counsel's quotes, none of which directly discuss the facts of thee. case, somehow her anonymity should now be revoked. M. has never spoken to the press. Ns argument is illogical and should be denied. Each argument is addressed in turn. I. The "En Shaped Penis" deposition The deposition of Jeffrey Epstein was filed with the court and is a public record. "A lawyer may allow a newspaper reporter to inspect the lawyer's copy of a deposition taken in a civil suit of considerable public interest if the deposition is available for public inspection in the court clerk's office, if the reporter, not the lawyer, instigated the inquiry, and if the lawyer refrains from improper discussion of pending litigation." Fla. Ethics Opinion 65-43 (July 30, 1965). This opinion was further amended subsequent to the United States Supreme Court opinion in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1047 (1991) to allow attorneys to quote more liberally on legal proceedings which have public interest. In Gentile, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that a vague regulation of public speech is impermissible and unconstitutional. A lawyer, like any other citizen, has a right to freedom of speech. The Gentile case involved a criminal defense attorney's comments to the press (not unlike those already cited in this case of Goldberger and Lefcourt). In Gentile the court required Page 4 of 15 EFTA00723525 that any rule banning public speech of an attorney must comply with both the requirements of "imminent" and "substantial" detrimental effect on the proceeding. Florida's Rule 4-3.6 specifically states that "A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect...will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing and adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding." The release of the Egg Shaped Penis deposition clearly did not "materially prejudice" Epstein in any manner because the Palm Beach Police incident report and probable cause affidavit which included this description of Epstein's private part was a public record and already in the public domain, posted on various news websites since his arrest. See http:/lwvinv.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0726062eDsteinthiml (posted July 26, 2006). Additionally, there was no "imminent" court proceeding at the time the comments were made public. Mr. Epstein's case is not currently set for trial.3 In the comments to Rule 4-3.6 it states that "Wire public has the right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern." The Epstein matter is a great public concern as evidenced by the thousands of news stories throughout the world. All press inquires were unsolicited by undersigned counsel. During the litigation in this matter, and because of Epstein's notoriety, press agencies from throughout the world have been attempting to contact both undersigned counsel and counsel for Epstein. This deposition was filed and made public because Epstein walked out of his properly noticed deposition. Therefore, his deposition was made public record because of Epstein's own actions. Other than showing an individual's identity, there is absolutely no difference between a Page 5 of 15 EFTA00723526 written transcript and a videotape for the purpose of public disclosure as it pertains to Epstein. Defendant cites absolutely no case law that can distinguish between a written transcript and a videotaped deposition.° As a result of Defendant Epstein's actions, this court sanctioned him and ordered him to reappear for deposition. At hearing, this court properly pointed out that the questions asked by undersigned counsel, while personal in nature, were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In fact, this argument by Defense counsel is another example of Defendant and his counsel saying one thing, and doing another. As recent as December 3, 2009, Epstein's counsel was reprimanded by the Federal Court and the United States Magistrate Judge Linnea It. Johnson for their deposition tactics and questioning. A review of the deposition transcript reveals numerous instances of Jane Doe 4 being subjected to repetitive questioning about exceedingly sensitive issues such as the emotionalir caused 1 and Epstein's treatment of her. To re-phrase Plaintiffs' counsel's words, while it may be appropriate toilirlaintiff in a personal ilic i asestion abut whether caused her when the essentially identical question is re- phrased and asked over and over again, the questioning becomes badgering and harassing. Counsel for Defendant must be mindful that the depositions of the Plaintiffs in these cases covers the most intimate and private details of their lives and if not handled correctly may serve to needlessly re-victimize, embarrass and humiliate them. ...counsel is expected to conduct himself in a responsible and professional manner befitting members of the Bar and balance the need for the information sought against the psychological trauma 3 Alternatively, undersigned counsel points out that the comments made by Mr. Goldberger and his co-counsel in the press, as cited above, with the criminal trial pending and speedy trial issues, were clearly made to cause "imminent" detrimental effect on the criminal proceeding. Conversely, a Jane Doe or an anonymous Plaintiff is entirely different. A proper non-identified plaintiff is afforded her anonymity because of the illicit and illegal actions of Defendant and Plaintiff's age. Defendant Epstein is not afforded that protection because he is the perpetrator, his photo is on the Internet as a registered Sexual Offender, he is a known public figure and has been identified already in this proceeding. Page 6 of 15 EFTA00723527  that could result from repetitive, humiliating questions regarding the sensitive issues at play in this case. Court Order Dec. 3, 2009 (Ex. 7). While Defendant now claims that undersigned counsel's conduct is somehow embarrassing or harassing, it is Epstein's attorneys who from the nexus of his criminal charges have taken a sledgehammer approach to discovery and publicity. The Defense tactic has been to bludgeon Epstein's numerous young accusers with negative press, heavy handed and intimate discovery questions and harassing deposition questioning. In no way was the release of an already publicly filed deposition improper or sanctionable. IL The Non-prosecution Agreement ("NPAn Defendant's argument about the non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") makes absolutely no legal sense. Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.5 Fla. Stat. § 90.404(2)(a). In Florida, there is a general rule of admissibility of relevant similar fact evidence even though the evidence points to the commission of another crime. This evidentiary rule is commonly referred to as the Williams rule. See Williams v. &ate, 110 So. 2d 654, 659, 662 (Fla. 1959), cert. denied 361 U.S. 847 (1959). This evidence of collateral crimes or acts is admissible under s charged with a crime Fla. Stat. § 90.404(2Xb)1 thither states that "[fin a criminal case in which the defendant is acts of child involving child molestation, evidence of the defendant's commission of other crimes, wrongs, or molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant" While this is the policy behind this not directly applicable because the instant case is not a criminal action, it is persuasive since subsection is similar to a civil proceeding for the same, or similar, acts. Page 7 of I5 EFTA00723528 section 90.404(2)(a) not because it is identical or even similar to the crime or act in issue, but because it is relevant to prove a material fact or issue in the instant case other than the defendant's propensity or bad character. Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 16 (Fla. 2000). This type of evidence is sometimes mistakenly referred to as "similar fact evidence," but the similarity of the facts involved in the collateral act or crime is not the test. Id. Here the court need not even address the issue of admissibility because the parties are merely engaged in discovery. Clearly, there is a good faith legal argument for the direct admission of similar fact evidence in this case to prove motive of Epstein to commit the sexual battery upon E., opportunity to commit this act, his intent, preparation, plan, knowledge ()f.'s age, identity of Epstein and the absence of mistake with respect to the girls' ages. All of these issues have been raised by the Defense. Regardless of admissibility, the discovery of the information in the N.P.A. is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As a result, through the proper legal court proceedings, undersigned counsel joined in a request to make public a document that did in fact lead to the discovery of relevant and pertinent information not only for the benefit of his client, but the general public and the system of justice. This NPA showed the previously secret deal cut by the U.S. Attorneys office with the Palm Beach State Attorney for the conviction of Defendant Epstein. It also identified by name co- conspirators which were given immunity. The NPA is also relevant with respect to the bias of Epstein's co-conspirators who were given immunity. See Fla. Stat. § 90.608(2). "Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by:...(2) showing that the witness is biased." Id Is there a possibility that a named co-conspirator/witness may be bias in the civil proceeding, in favor of Epstein, because he negotiated for her immunity and freedom? See Morrison v. State, 818 So. Page 8 of 15 EFTA00723529 2d 432, 446-47 (FM. 2002)(disclosing a witness's self-interest is a proper purpose of attacking the witness's credibility). Without question, this is relevant cross examination material in the instant case. Until the release of this NPA, undersigned counsel had no way of knowing the terms of the deal or the co-conspirators provided immunity. Regardless, the Fourth District Court of Appeals granted undersigned counsel's petition and made the non-prosecution agreement public. See Epstein v. State, 16 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). This document also has direct implications on the allegations of Plaintiff's cause of action. It is now an Exhibit to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint which shows the broad sexual enterprise (i.e. R.I.C.O.) and co-conspirators Epstein utilized to abuse underage women at his home on Palm Beach and elsewhere. It strains reason for Defense counsel to claim that by utilizing the proper legal procedures, and winning at the appellate court level, Plaintiff counsel's lawful conduct is somehow sanctionable. M. Various News Articles Next, Defendant cites various news quotes from undersigned counsel relative to this proceeding. As previously stated infra, these quotes are within the constitutional mandates of both freedom of the press and free speech. See Gentile. Furthermore, it can hardly be said that Epstein's counsel has taken the tact of "no comment." Mr. Epstein is a man who has not, and does not, shy away from national and international publicity. He even has his own Wikipedia page on the iMemet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrev_epstein (See Ex. 8). This is a man who, long before the current litigation, had an international profile with friends such as former President Bill Clinton, Actors Keven Spacey, Chris Tucker, David Copperfield, and financial mogels like Les Wexner (owner of The Limited, Victoria's Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch and others). The facts Page 9 of 15 EFTA00723530 surrounding his crimes were national and international news in print, television and on the interne. One need only Google "Jeffrey Epstein" to find over 36,000 stories on-line. (Ex. 9). Mr. Epstein's illicit actions are even contained within published novels. See Learner, Laurence, Madness Under The Royal Palms, Love and Death Behind the Gates of Palm Beach, Hyperion (2009) at p.175. The premise that, in the midst of this media deluge, four or five quotes by undersigned counsel somehow tainted Mr. Epstein's ability to receive a fair trial is laughable. Attached to this Response as Exhibit 1-5 & 10 are no less than nine (9) news stories containing quotes from Goldberger and other members of the Epstein defense team. In addition to this legal team, Mr. Epstein hired professional Hollywood publicists in an attempt to spin the media and attack his numerous underage accusers. (See Ex. 1). Mr. Epstein hired finned New York publicist Dan Klores — whose client list has included Paris Hilton and Jennifer Lopez — who was quoted as saying in an August 8, 2006, interview with the Palm Beach Post, that Mr. Epstein was ready "to get his story out." This crack legal team and publicity engine gave numerous interviews with the media in an attempt to smear the reputations of the minor victims of Mr. Epstein. In opposite to their present position, Epstein's counsel took a diametrically opposite ethical position, in a similar sexually charged and high publicity litigation. While the facts of that other case are irrelevant to the instant proceeding, the legal proposition is the same. In a case involving allegations of sexual harassment and battery with a high profile plaintiff attorney from Stuart, Epstein's current defense counsel freely gave interviews and information to the media, such as videotapes, to the press. (See Ex. 11). In this other litigation, Mr. Pike was quoted as saying Itjhis is nothing but a shakedown for money." (See Ex. II). The Critton firm then filed and made public the content of sexually Page 10 of 15 EFTA00723531 explicit DVD's showing the defendant's adult son having sex with one of the defendant's accusers. Pike was again quoted in the press saying "she claims she was assaulted by the father, yet a week later, she's making an amateur sex video with the son." (See Ex. 11). Mr. Critton is no stranger to the media either. In the past he has given numerous quotes to the Palm Beach Post about his cases, including one where he personally attacked an opposing litigant in the press by stating that "[he] has a pathological disorder." (See Ex. 12). Were Critton and Pike making comments in an effort to improperly prejudice the public and potential jury against their client's accusers, or were they merely exercising their First Amendment Rights to comment on evidence in the case? Critton has even given direct media interviews regarding his current client, Mr. Epstein. In an extremely ironic move, after filing his motion for sanctions against undersigned counsel, Critton gave an interview with the national publication AmLaw Daily.6 (See Ex. 13). In that detailed interview, Critton was discussing his recent filing on behalf of Epstein against disgraced attorney Scott Rothstein. The facts of Critton's complaint deal with the civil cases against Epstein which were handled by an attorney in Rothstein's office. Critton told the press "instead of a defendant having a legitimate discussion with a plaintiff to resolve a case, [Rothstein's] out there pitching millions in dollars from these other cases he claims to have" and further claims that Rothstein engaged in "abusive litigation tactics." Critton further told the press that he was seeking "at least $100,000 in damages and more than that if damages are trebled." 6 A Palm Beach Post reporter also advised undersigned counsel that Critton's office dropped off a copy of the Complaint against Rothstein the same day it was filed with the court. Obviously, an attorney trying to avoid press would not voluntarily drop off a new complaint to the local newspaper. It is clear that Epstein's team were actively seeking out press on this issue. Page 11 of 15 EFTA00723532  Critton appears to have no problem with quotes to the press when they favor his client's position. It is merely when the victims of his client speak out through their attorneys, when he takes issue. One cannot use the Rules as a shield and a sword. None of the statements made to the press by undersigned counsel were improper. Additionally, none of the statements cited by Defense were prejudicial to the administration of justice. Quotes cannot be read in a vacuum. Both Epstein and his victims have had equal representation of their version of events, and the allegations, in the media. To silence or punish just one party without the other, would effectively quash the constitutional freedom of speech by victims and their advocates from speaking out when attacked by their accusers representatives. IV. Goldberger Affidavit Of all the unfounded accusations outlined in Defendant's motion, it is the Goldberger affidavit that is the most disappointing. First, undersigned counsel denies the statements recounted by Goldberger in his affidavit. Second, and more importantly, it is a sad day when colleagues in a difficult and stressful profession cannot have a friendly, joking conversation apart from their usual advocacy and courtroom arguments. Frankly, the fact that Goldberger has filed this affidavit speaks more about him as an individual than any other filed document or quote to the press in this case. Undersigned counsel will show more discretion and not recount the similar out of context, and joking, comments Goldberger made in this same conversation about his family and his own client unless the court finds any merit to this argument. If so, then undersigned counsel will provide his own affidavit quoting everything said during the conversation misquoted by Goldberger. Regardless, this conversation had absolutely no bearing on the current litigation or either side's litigation strategy. For Goldberger to even try and use this friendly conversation as Page 12 of 15 EFTA00723533 anything other than two colleagues discussing and joking about business is distressing to say the least. Unfortunately, Mr. Goldberger has shown himself to be an untrustworthy and unfriendly individual. That is just sad. V. Anonymity of Plaintiff, II As an apparent afterthought, Defendant somehow tries to leap to the conclusion that based on counsel's statements to the press, al should lose her anonymity. As cited above, Epstein's counsel has "solicited" untold amounts of publicity for himself. Conversely, not a single statement cited by Defense references the facts of M's specific case! The first case cited by Defense for this argument is Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992). Ignoring for a moment that this is a Federal decision interpreting Federal procedure, Defendant's conclusions about this case and its applicability to the instant situation are awkward at best. Undersigned counsel can only assume that this argument is a cut and paste job from a similar motion filed by Defense counsel with the Federal Court in other Epstein litigation because it does not apply. Defense counsel properly cites the seven factors in Doe v. FYank which would afford a plaintiff anonymous status. See Defendant's Motion for Sanctions p. 9. Two of these seven factors are directly relevant to the instant case: "whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of utmost intimacy" and "whether the interests of children are at stake." In a baffling display, Defense counsel then states in his motion that "Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors." As recognized by the Federal Magistrate, this entire case is about intimate sexual conduct involving minors. Furthermore, S's identity has been known to Defense counsel since the inception of this litigation. As a result, all of the caselaw cited by Defense about "the purpose of discovery" Page 13 of 15 EFTA00723534 is irrelevant. It and undersigned counsel have not done a single thing or taken any action to prevent the orderly discovery in this case. Further, Plaintiff does not disagree with any of the cases cited in paragraph 21 of Defendant's motion. The courts should be open to every person; but how is that relevant to revealing the identity of a sexual molestation victim? To identify a young girl who was molested by Defendant as a minor, serves absolutely no purpose other than a threat to embarrass and silence..'s counsel and any of Epstein's critics. Unfortunately, given the Epstein team's previous gorilla litigation tactics in both the civil and criminal proceeding, it is not surprising. Not a single case cited by Defendant stands for the proposition that comments by counsel regarding a defendant somehow vitiates a Plaintiff's entitlement to anonymity. As a result, this request should also be denied. Conclusion For the above mentioned reasons and argument, Defendant's entire motion for sanctions and to identify should be denied. 7 Interesting to note, this is the same tactic that Epstein's counsel has taken repeatedly in the cases with other girls (i.e. to threaten to identify plaintiffs if they speak to the press), while alternatively Epstein's counsel apparently feel none of the similar constraints. Page 14 of 15 EFTA00723535  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, this day of ac o , aov, to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.= Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike,. LEOPOLD-.ICUV1N P.A. Esq. F orida Bar No.: 089737 Page 15 of 15 EFTA00723536 Orem ile/elster reiten" ~OS relleldiresas 41,Plart~iiiremt PaimBeachPost.cora i Archives =4 ,4 9f.. sik aMiler nesseem Snerpete lai Wob Jaka Anm e:* bel« 660.-O [Lotet Odooras Ønte unna eectoinotto; Idroot ~ne Ider Våde, SoF Stade« Olleklerd Bet~ limaatkoecruarsh EPSTEIN CAMP CALLS FEMALE ACCUSERS LIARS STUKE: LARKE NEISER Pta, Boa Pan SUP W Vete DATE: Auge A 2W6 PUBLICATION: Pen Boaen Post. ne (fu EDMOM FINAL SECT1TettIOCAL PC 18 *CAD: Pan ade edbons ANOTey1 ond eutileab b Peil Beach Otiet Jette E miten ote on Ve ~ra Mane, aremnig the mene 911s Beach Pol« pro han manet ;Man ce sein shonsigem t hd Watodyl drop om Fall ond memo Me the Peon Depidlegere Is 'etinsh' 'Trafo never was ete w boben ~sy Epilere ed mowage mimen: his lem money, ams Golabergar, ad kon hin rrelano. nano eim he te agonio etle ids tr esy. Eptlein dd han Youni edeme eterne totar hollid toge Gdeerwr ila/0 *MO Epikk. ileectdey bidet«) ~øy who come lo Ne Mulle es Osel Om ege of Ib Med le volle! Not, I deal knok Te **Edd b, dd mag Bege. OCOX. The Iowa ne knee hen? Ib tem em ~em se to ne Epstem vetid pey pek eman onn no muene Valren-.: vin tipped tetlen otid mes me sera coat • $200 to S3C9 exdwk ans. *Te ctedbilay erta ransmo mrs Me .~.0h, enestiere.• Ganar Etaten. D3, was rna byen:arts Granne lat mai), ens 01050 cel~yeaScllit.ke d. poet"tat After en flira vantinnon tles: inchand etan benk Ente% trash end eereifing Ne hank Pent Bach pale anden enn ved ~egd fl age edd/flette ~JO Ido tol.th SOOkid eCtidt~ ninor. "nen re ned »y Mad Galne no less ~due Pace CAM Meheet Remer erred Me ese to In FBI be Ool Omens aner tonen kaut Ise stupat. kelmim Pale Klam red Astra Salte ritodes ene me ctee185!~. New Te" rø:~ Dan Ken remse tant Ist hoe jorri4,e leper - anm Scedday eid Erdidds wnp val moe/ NO st the nei/ CM? 'Ret DO DB Mordsy * Bell~ ed e Lan Minne rivalre lor Ila ~rei eobw,e stimer lee Blanc We azo has topremted Enten In Pre ese sere 'vie Bel Mink More hes asen. damed gr« ot ris Can Ib the meda Porrnod by Vie Nem Ensar pelloM Gnager ay- Rella hes corentente genre to ~men on re case and de nat Itign3 m a rø:~ Er tameslit gen Key av omn Sug lte Impleste Val Sliet Mere« Ene Knollet wie bisy m Enten by pleorreg the neo le dagro arene ega tan h wrceig. Geiter son De Perm &Mb Pole DepartMeet 'Meg/ end erdold- vet the pm« ne gong to sn« earece.1thint savri reponse a Vare inne ha" Med Ide meir. Tene 6ecilee to no tre pren ho ~ørne Mr. Egste' Eke MOMS tibrei MC lidende« KftCbtm Mel 1- we 0~ re ram en to me ~Kry suggen% trek Kroar 'onna* II gen eve Steam nam «lus to rna yer chineldealkin Nes ar pwascialoi ofta» casu.' Par trea tad ane to ekne Epttny Kolachef yvesod the ene lotre gad jury tranen' the ~ Gcnaerge• Pe onne A stole sticmwe sawne mord soy ryn the the eace tekn etla to Ire grel gay Wien new are isme with «the ~nes te enestoe esadeaty. mim riens. a Irre mote renes sn ne g'i'd juy morken teie lam not sinne Minnes the Egste MO w ~ra to Genneger. st ras Arsz a °tab grimme-ca by tro Nem Bote Poke Depertmen: ~per seld The Sotet« Mag sold an ot the eiegod am sen. Sleid the s • seer ass In Od om tnt eo. d lE Anene ~EM snussol anm ere vem avkoma lo tesir to the grene My tind to do to. Epsterns treentre. he sand, heie bleien dama ard Ø. *Det ~n ne for.. %Ne Wittlafthed rat: ide I n lwarliNndr0,1".~~~160 , 03•2~1110•12,C11)~00.0~.. øfrel•tuajuen.e•s. own.,4-1.-inre‘omsno, letnadielienrenaco,,,epodock-m EFTA00723537  Oren kr 1H- WO. Win oaf Si War mat -The MS /Awn Aicwn Iht why vexed they el Indent 010 starlets abort meeting Ereste.n to sumer massages? n dent het en revs- es to ehe was the mei/set:xi Sr these worrier. to cane reword end net IING,repro%I,. _Ober said IllustnIf on: P14010 (C) Jelly/ Ecetein (mug) Copnte a) arc. P &.o, *ape it Featured Jobs egritillittneeta efittusseiratureara PURCHASING AleNAGERS44A98/an SAMMatMagafigr8 CALIERCKAMAXETINGIMECT0R MAKSOCRS kg aro ate — View NIItslaracJobe CoSiglie 2008,111-PiltatiithVeit:Ale& usenet By tat Palcitacitostan you accept de tan °four visitor assevarat. rkase tend Carew i'ataBacitPost.comI privacy Oact 52saatlan Advcnisc 'with Tit Par I laic= haMdme•ConterVre sucrerearchfreitp_mannlocleccioac.113SitetOCSMXPOtcsonrs...tcalet• la.ulfarelOr 46:jsentra• S gate ine.Letmeta• AC 011:411V. le3211171401a,ggie.kabA nip II% I EFTA00723538  sae aeon 0~ *eh.% SO Pl" lean geminate IY/tYllerlwie0elera PahnBeachPosicom I Archives jots Autos Reacts* ~it Minna Was ~gr. Sitte Web iihvt. yanect hnett Lases Gar net Odan Intro athasive env: Horne s,- terse. Opeold: 11222LUB I alaittRW~3 EPSTEIN'S RELEASE UPSETS 'JANE DOES,'THEIR ATTORNEY SAYS BYLINE: SONJA »GE Ft. Pan Bosch Pa She W rlie- DAM 44 23.2O09 PUBUCATION: Pea Oka Pont. The fel) arum FINAL SECTION: LOCAL & BUSNE SS PAGE 113 MEMO: Gel shwa up Mend Simi cesolde eta the .Wtey Epstein case. PeimBoarPcst cOntrepeten Epstein sOON and on Jere Ca No. 6 dd not witch Natin Wedrear/ ~Nog. CeNe »NOIONG ettanterate ateY 13 Na Pan, Bead, Beasonly. a he calked advise Pia Beech Corey Jii end •YPPed la a Cr an ad No, bock Mtn!~ ton tun to mete It wigy. 1&awn eetego And Yea, the hitayegrald It now. itnyelend *ea "now v.he Its dale his tkno - ree risito ID mantra d an Metes= ran annoy», Ce ceotan. Cheat» In weekly *CT h• goren Cane. aereehday. Ba Jane Doe No 6 tee an. who ha Ned lawsuits Ivan font in the worked NL any Wo and autaCch at poeet. eva Vial he was read WC% a me, torch retailed Want:~ wilh =nay Eed ~IM O» bar may mare« on bone of yard wan who clam to nth been A!"! a *nun MinAns hat INOn IJs «dimt ran they wins tons 'Tea as has any tame. »a we warm to hoc tied ~as skeins, Mr. Epstein end we We chance them: Eppoinh attorney: Jack 001dberpert. said you renkat dikeen Roane Catitegors mats online, the entnyrrcus Ms. Doe teed Nael: 'Ca an not sidles— wild add tinny sesoutled by n Oa' men! Nos 22. oho set she c wham; In Nth add yea Feria esnuiCy Cased her She was Ws-ninon:0 OY nie °tau& money ard poter ho Sae& she sere • Nor ender no Ora by Jane Dec Nos. 2 honk 6. says Ada Horowitz, wto mastiff each en sescra era llsno timed» and cares fled on bail ce war aged *time dehaibt Epteleint peal ce cede nierisaccs one a yohil Bar pay orkn Macy. tor Ilse yang women - some aim te hone been as Bred as 12. fantod to liow1Z -soy he tirdded n torn he reread lobo weal), to tell or whose eredltdIty cold be eetles into qJeistion And 'te Sae &Need to Non Co , It, sane cases on El Brillo Wey by rtitear sNa lis chests anew in LacensaChee end GOyd Palm tech led von dick taken to the ~mien task FeC4thLien The dad he Epstein daadtin gay In Joss 20» to two letery dwpn. pleCtaina a ace br coca ttian and &alley Count m000 to gel on Wrenn conc.», is sored. thOUCM ths: een le ome plop charsilen n 1Vhstri he vaS serieeed. thy were eh:~ It sizet nel: a attract Nora./ sea 14C Then they kind he ~sot swain int thet time in jell. ~crag to scot. Epstein an handier/ rattly al Lorne weekends enne last OCkhor os part ci a solintotee program. /le sealt het erne, ~10 o: mot : td te Fonda i Scarce Fete\ tt neemt! te ~Eh Wan he ma schemed. No. the man's aK now.' areas ad. "They at ney ashotel Some teal say wattle MC heb out on the street des Farad cells to E psi/Wie attorney We MI retuned. ACOWIIM nut ACSINteilisacerM4OKY•tarObeb,~~cáiyetoOnAPOIM1309319arts,•.~.104.01~.0.1,44.2aninr•t•w ~S.M. EFTA00723539  11:40, :2119, O•Me.cM,a•i.mRMIYMMI)<YtrslMriMiWllacion•nen date: amp* ce An DNA be lho Fa Vic net yea. Eaton mast Check in weekly oat et patio ri Oka Not no hate to Wets Oaten °Senders muy rot l As be Coale.'" Kam tome. Pan Bosch nas on stole law to 6«ermne Mase rt4 stew an 1,000 kot tl • alma ark oe tad am cert.. Ha manta ant dew d all ace zeros. Sat manna mots tstorionice oontetwas 10 out nay ratan app"N.) 7X9 INior 0.1a‘ Featured Jr>bc. VEMIC~131.1116,AVACCEl 3RD pryccutcnofri SAWACER Eecaent COVLin9QtiVt~ CDVEIRUD1pN10DgSEFYER. Fa NOS ___ ~MN" PlaCHAGINOWHACER $44.4911 Pon PI01~ WOO«MIRE WOW HOME WALSH ilaNCYfrnmaked• Vny m, Fteturta Jot., ',er~ 02008, it Pala Bach-Post AM eras ~et utiogPatraciachPostooetn you ocapt at sewn Mow nitair sigann tboantlidt Calblnik41~1~1q• I Chat= daSszliscetit~ ....,24t4,8ecreal.lanhwevni•Iluanlks,"~“010.40114P/1111.0••.~~14.. ProtNl rt-abou..e.-"ariparnises temati..-~ caa..taxd• Val Wit‘ItC3, 30"ew EFTA00723540  rt Hr. Vert rvr. 20,2e9 1112 AM MOGUL DOOGFc :8.3110.11 C kit riCr MOGUL DODGES JAJLBAIT CHARGE New Yodt Post- New York, N.Y. Date: Jul 27.2005 Start Page: 014 Section: Page rot Tae Word Cant $95 DoourneMhat IT looks like New York ttlioneire financier Jeffrey How to make e lectricitY Epstein got off easy when ho was hit with s charge of A shocidng new horneowner's kit the electric co's soliciting a preset& for a "napPysndirer in Peen hope u vAll never own Beach. vesPoveMlionweem Because It Palm Beach police had rear way, Epstein. 53 - who eurnmdered last Sunday and IF out on 53.000 ball- mighthave been whacked Witi tar more Search multiple engines at once for newspaper serious charges olpaying underage girls for sex archives wentwebanderann But a sego randier/bond the witnesses in the case were notittedible and threw cattail but the single deur Meek:ging a hooker n his hoar/Sous Perm %Mat Beasts home.Epstein lawyers and Mends now say What concerns you the most about today's health he's the hapless Vetim of a vendetta by Palm Beech insurance system? Ponce Chief Manse Reiter, whom they oesenbe 06 a ItorAten commetondeNay 'Immegaln nut case? Acconcmg to the police investgation. a copyof which from 17 witnesses and flw alleged act ms 20. a who described herself as like a Heice Reiss: vase she got S.ee naked lo give Epstein a massage. Mn brought him slack's ages 14-16 for messages and sent his home. said theywere paid $200 per session. Cops also allege that Epstein's personal assistant who basal been charged, set up the IFIFFOFIS and garbage end put trash sheets on the massage table and supplied massage oils. Police searched through EpslePfs retriesed sex toss and feminine hygiene products. the caps had Epstent Palm Beach lawyer. JacitGoldberger. bid Page Six the the Florida state attorney concluded test lookedatevidence from ii terie-S kited penspec5n.' He sated that Epstein had passed an ostensive lee-deteetor In which he was grilled aboutunderage pins. in ttvs case. but Epstein New York lawyer. Gerald LOW" sec, The prosecutor didn't want to bring anycharges because tot the vainest Of this paws chief.** haw the charge of solicitaton? A spok•SWOman tot Reiter said,strer think our knesfigolion speaks to leuvoeurea with Dterat!Cri of the merlin Ove4f. FWaer ftPtOduel:011Ce digabubon inn/need without PerentiOn. Abstract (Document Summary) Cops also allege that petty EpsteinTs personal assistant-, who hasn't been charged, setup the liaisons and put trash sheets on tne massage table end supplied massage Oh. Police searched