062

PDF Document Uploaded Feb 1, 2026 by Unknown 1 views 101.09 KB
Court Records as described by folder names.
Epstein Release Interview Victim Statements Evidence Maxwell
← Back to Doe v. Epstein, No. 9;09-v-80469 (S.D. Fla. 2009)
Extracted Text

UN I TE ST AT ES I STR I CT OU RT SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF ORI DA CASE NO V-MARRA/J OHNSON A II Plaintiff vs EFF REY EPSTEI and SARAH KEL EN DE EN DA NT KE EN AN SWER A ND AF I RMA TI VE DE EN SES TO PL AI NTI FF FI RST AMENDED COMPL AI NT action JURISDICTION AND VENUE Admit that the fac TD ts alleg ed in the complaint if rue rea te venue in this ourt As to the ag ainst self-incr imination ee eL isi Banke rs I ns an So.2d Fla th I nc ri min a tio Cl a us a pp lie to the sta te th ro ug the Du Pr oc ss Cla us of the ou rt nth was asser ted in sta te or fe dera court Fed.Pra Proc Civ 3d Ef fe of Fa ilu re to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ourt must treat the def endant claim of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of privileg as quivalent to a spec ific denia See also Fla ur.2d Eviden ce De fe nd an ts i iv il a tio ns a ivil defenda nt who raises a aff irmative def ense is not prec ed from asserting the privileg ag ainst self-incr imination beca use af firmative defe nses do not co titute the kind of voluntary application for aff irmative re lief hich would preve nt a plaintiff bring ing a claim see king a ffirma tive relief from asse rting the privileg AR TIES Def TD endant is without sufficient knowle dg to admit or deny whe her Plaintiff is a na tural pe rs on re sid ing in a lm a Co un ty lor ida A to the re ma in der of the a lle a tio ns in ara raph efe ndant asser ts her ifth Amendment privileg ag ainst self-incr imination ee DeL isi anker I ns Company So.2d Fla DCA Malloy Hog an th S.Ct the Fif th Amendment?s Self-I ncrimination Clause applies to the states throug the Due Proc ess Clause of the Fo rtee nth Amendment i would be incong ruous to have dif fer ent standar ds determine the validity of a claim of privileg base on the same fea red prosec ution de pending on whether the claim was asser ted i at or fede ral ourt ed.P rac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ourt must re at the def endant claim of privileg as equivalent to a spe cific de nial See also Fla ur.2d Evidenc De fe nd an ts in iv il ac tio ns a ivil defenda nt who raises a aff irmative def ens is not prec luded from asser ting the pr ivilege aga inst self-incrimination because aff irmative def enses do not on sti tut the kin olu nta ry a pp lic a tio or a ff ir ma tiv re lie whi ch wou ld re ve nt a plaintiff bring ing a claim eeking aff irmative relief from asser ting the pr ivilege rea lleg es and Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of adopts her esponse in par ag raph a bove Admit that TD eff rey Epstein is a natura pe rson who is a adult and who resides a nd/or does business in Palm Beac County Florida Admit that Defe ndant Kellen is a at ural pe rson who is an adult As to the rema inder of the alleg ations in parag raph efe ndant asser ts her i A i i a a i i i i a i i i a In a So la DC A Ma llo Ho a S.Ct he if th th Am nd me nt Se lf I nc ri min a tio Cl a us a pp lie to the sta te th ro ug th Du Pr oc ss la us of the ourtee nth Am endment i would be incong ruous to have dif fer ent standar ds deter mine the validity of a cla im of privileg base on the same ear ed prose cution depending on whether the claim wa asserte in stat fe er al court Fe d.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny rivilege Against Self-Inc rimination ourt must treat the def endant claim of privileg as quivalent to a spec ific denia See also Fla ur.2d Evidenc De fe nd an ts i iv il a tio ns a ivil defenda nt who raises a aff irmative de fe ns is ot re lud ro a sse rt ing the pr ivi le ag a ins se lf i nc ri min ati on be a us aff irmative defe nses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for aff irmative re lief which would preve nt a plaintiff bring ing a claim seeking aff irmative relief from asse rting the privileg Admit that TD eff rey Epstein curr ently resides in alm Be ach lorida De fenda nt is without i i a i i a i i AC TS As TD a ega i et fo rt i ar agr ap De fe an as er er Fi ft Am en en ri i ege aga i elf-inc rimination See DeL isi Banke rs I ns Company So.2d Fla th Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of DCA a ll a Ct th if th A me me Se lf I nc ri min a tio Cl a us a pp lie to the sta te thr ou the Du Pr oc ss Cla us of the ou rt nth Am nd me nt it wo uld be inc on ru ou to ha ve dif fe re nt ta nd a rd te rm ine the va lid ity of a la im ri vil ba se on the sa me fe a re pro se uti on de pe nd ing on wh the the la im was a sserted in state or fede ral court Fe d.Prac Proc Civ 3d Ef fe of Fa ilu re to eny Privilege Against Self-Inc rimination ourt must treat the de fenda nt?s claim of privileg as ivalent to a spec ific denia See also Fla ur.2d Evidenc De fe nd an ts i iv il a tio ns a ivil defenda nt who raises a aff irmative def ense is not prec luded from asserting the pr ivilege aga inst self-incrimination because aff irmative defe nses do not onstitut the kind of voluntary application for aff irmative relie whi ch would preve nt a plaintiff bring ing a claim seeking a ffirma tive relief from asse rting the privileg As TD to the a lle a tio set fo rt in par a ra ph De fe nd a nt a lle a nd a do pts he sp on se in para raph a bove As TD to the a lle a tio se fo rt in pa ra ra ph De fe nd a nt a lle a nd a do pts he sp on se in para raph a bove As TD to he a lle a tio or th in pa ra ra ph fe nd a nt a lle a nd a do pts he sp on se in para raph a bove As TD to he a lle a tio or th i a ra ra ph fe nd a nt a lle a nd a do pts he re sp on se in para raph a bove As TD to he a lle a tio for th in a ra ra ph fe nd a nt a lle a nd a do pts he sp on se in para raph a bove Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of As TD to he a lle a tio or th i a ra ra ph fe nd a nt re a lle and a do pts he sp on se in para raph a bove As TD to he a lle a tio ns in a rag raph fe nd a nt a lle a nd a do pts he sp on se in para raph a bove CO UN I S.C a DE EN DA NT EP STEI Although Count I TD is not alleg ed ag ainst Defe ndant as to the alleg ations in parag raph De fe nd a nt sta te a nd inc or po ra te re fe re nc he sp on ses a se or th i a ra ra ph throug No TD a pp lic a ble to fe nd a nt CO UN II a vs EF EN DA NT ELLEN As to para TD raph efe ndant re states and incor porate re fe re ce her re sponses as set forth in par ag raphs throug Ad TD mit tha Pla int if ks the da ma st a te in par a ra ph ny tha a ny da ma attorney fe es or osts are ow ed WHEREFORE Def endant equests that the Court deny all relief soug ht by Plaintiff AF IR AT IV EF EN SES As TD to Pla int if cla im Pla int if ac tua lly on se nte to a nd wa a wi lli ng pa rt ic ipa nt i th a ts a a a i a a a a a i a i As to Plainti TD ff claim Plaintiff actua lly consente to and par ticipated in conduc simi lar and/or identica to the acts alleg ed with other pe rsons which we re the sole or contr ibuting ca use of Pla int if a lle a ma As to Plainti TD ff claim Plaintiff impliedly consente to the acts alleg ed by not objecting and Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of a i a a a a a i a i As to Plain TD tiff?s cla im Defe ndant re asonably believed or was told that the Plaintiff had a tta ine th a of a rs old a th tim of the a lle a ts As to Plainti TD ff claim Plaintiff?s claims are barr ed as she said she wa ear or older a the time As TD to lain ti ff?s cla im Pla int if a lle a ma re a us in wh ole or pa rt by ve nts and/or ircumstance completely unrela ted to the incident alleg ed in the complaint Pla TD int if la ims a re ba rr the a pp lic a ble sta tut of lim ita tio ns Plaintiff TD has failed to plead a cause of action as she does not and can not show a violation of a pre dicate a ct under the applica ble ver sion of U.S.C the ver sion in eff ect pr ior to the amendment ffe ctive Jul As to Plainti TD ff claim the ver sion of U.S.C in effec at the time of the alleg ed conduc applies and thus the pre sumptive mini mum damag es amount should Pl aintiff prove the eleme nts of such cla im is and not subject to any multipl ier As to Plainti TD ff claim Plaintiff is entitl ed to only a sing le re cover of her actua da mage Sho uld Pla int if ro ve a tua da ma in a a mou nt ss ha th a pp lic a ble sta tut or min imu he is nti tle to a sin le re ov ry of re a rd le ss of the nu mbe a ts Al low ing a mul tip lic a tio of the da ma ov ra ble wo uld be in iol a tio he pr oh ibi tio a a ins the re ov ry of du pli a tiv da ma As to Plainti TD ff claim applica tion of the amende version of S.C eff ective July would be in violation of the leg al axiom aga inst retroac tive application of a amende statute and also in violation of such constitutional principles including but not limi ted to Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of the Ex Post Fa cto Clause U.S Const Article I cl cl and proc edura and substantive due proc ess U.S Const Amend Amend The statute in eff ect during the time of the a lleg ed th th on du a pp lie As to Plainti TD ff claim applica tion of the amende version of S.C eff ective July is prohibited pursuant to the vag ueness doc trine and the Rule of enity A ri min a st a tut is qu ir to ive a ir wa rn ing in language that the omm on wo rl ill understand of what the law intends to do if a certain li ne is passed To ma ke the wa rning fair so ar as poss ible the line should be cle ar United States anier U.S S.Ct Ed.2d quoting Mc Boy le United States U.S S.Ct Ed omission in original th re lated manife stations of the fair war ning equire ment are TD the vag ueness doctrine bars enfor ceme nt of a statute which either forbids or require the doing of an ac in terms so vag ue that men of common intelligenc must ne cessa rily uess at its meaning and i a i a i a i a i i i i a a i ensure fair arning by so resolving ambig uity in a cr iminal statute as to apply it only to conduct le a rl ov re du pr oc ss ba rs ou rt fr om a pp ly ing a no ve on str uc tio a ri min a st a tut to on du tha ne ith he sta tut no a ny pr ior jud ic ia de isi on ha a ir ly dis los to be wi thi it scope The applicable version TD of U.S.C cre ates a cause of action on behalf of a minor Pla int if a att a ine the a of ma jor ity a the tim of fi lin thi ac tio a nd a or din ly a us of ac tion is barred Application TD of the U.S.C as amende eff ective uly is in viol ation of the constitutional principles of due pr ocess the Ex Post Fa cto clause and the ule of enity in that Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of in a me nd ing the te rm min or to rs on a to thos wh may br ing a a us of a tio im pe rm iss ibl a nd un on sti tut ion a lly br oa de ne th sc op of pe rs on a ble to ri ng a la im TD S.C vio la te the Eq ua Pr ote tio Cl a us of the Am nd me nt nd he th Constit ution and thus Pl aintiff?s laim thereunde is barr ed U.S.C viol TD ates the onstitut ional uara ntees of pr ocedur al a substantive due proce ss Procedura due proc ess uara ntees that a person will not be depr ived of life liberty or proper ty without notice and opportunity to be heard Substantive due pr ocess pr otects funda mental rig hts Accor dingly Plaintiff?s cause of ac tion thereunde is barr ed WHEREFORE Def endant equests that this Court deny the re lief soug ht by Plaintiff Respectf TD ully submitt ed ru Re inh a rt BRUCE REI NHART P.A Florida Ba No Australian Avenue Suite West alm Be ach lorida a BReinha rt ruce ReinhartL aw.c om Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CER TI I CA TE OF SER VI CE I here by cer tify that a true and cor rec opy of the fore oing Answer was ser ved on all counse of re cord by CM/ECF on October s/Bruc TD Reinhar TD RU CE RE I NH AR Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of
11,578 characters