EFTA00175835

Case 9:08-cv-8 
11-KAM 
Document 52 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 101 
008 
Page 7 of 10 
Case No. CV-80381-Marra-Johnson 
Page No. 7 
CHAPTER 117--TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY 
AND RELATED CRIMES 
§ 2422. Coercion and enticement 
(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any 
individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or 
Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual 
activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or 
attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 
20 years, or both. 
(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign 
commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 
United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any 
individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution 
or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal 
offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned 
not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.
CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF 
CHILDREN 
§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries 
(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 22416, 2242 2243 
2251, 2251A, 2252 2252A, 2260, 2421 2422, or 2423 of this title and who 
suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any 
appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual 
damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable 
attomey's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be 
deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. 
(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the 
complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in 
' The above-quoted version of 18 
§2422 is the post-2003 amendments which 
amended the statute as follows: 
2003 Amendments. Subsec. (a). Pub.L. 108-21, 6 103(a)(2)(A), struck out "10" 
and inserted "20". 
Subsec. (b). Pub.L. 108-21. § 103(a)(2)(B), struck out "15" and inserted "30". 
Pub.L. 108-21, § 103(b)(2)(A)(i), struck out ", imprisoned" and inserted "and 
imprisoned not less than 5 years and". 
Pub.L. 108-21. § 103(b)(2)(A)(ii) struck out ", or both" at end of subsec. (b). 
Defendant is not waiving his right to claim that the pre-2003 amended version of the 
statute is applicable in this action. However, for purposes of this motion, the relevant 
statutory language is the same. 
EFTA00175855

Case 9:08-cv-' 
81-KAM 
Document 52 
Enterer 
FLSD Docket 10/ 
?008 
Page 8 of 10 
Case No. CV-80381-Marra-Johnson 
Page No. 8 
the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after 
the disability. 
Relevant to Plaintiff's complaint, 18... 
2255(a) creates a civil remedy for "a 
minor who is a victim of a violation of section ... 2422 ... of this title and who suffers 
personal injury as a result of such violation ... ." Plaintiff has failed to plead any factual 
allegations whatsoever pertaining to violations of 18M. 
2422. Rather, Plaintiff has 
alleged conclusory allegations simply attempting to track parts of the statutory language 
in the statute without underlying factual allegations pertaining to the Plaintiff and any 
conduct by Defendant. See ¶29 of Am. Comp. Plaintiffs allegations, (or lack of factual 
allegations), are precisely what the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell 
Atlantic Corp. prohibits — Plaintiffs complaint alleges only "labels and conclusions, and 
a (partial) formulaic recitation of the elements." 
First, the Amended Complaint fails to designate whether Plaintiff is relying on 
§2422(a) or §2422(b). Second, although the complaint does contain a partial tracking of 
the language in 18 S. 
§2422(b), it contains absolutely no factual allegations 
concerning the requisite "using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign 
commerce" by Plaintiff to state a cause of action based on a violation of 18 
2422(b). As well, there are no underlying factual allegations involving this Plaintiff as to 
the requisite elements that a defendant knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or 
coerced any individual (Plaintiff in this case) who has not attained the age of 18 years, 
to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with 
a criminal offense, or attempted to do so. See 18 
2422(b); i.e. with what criminal 
offense could Plaintiff and Defendant have been charged. Again, a Plaintiff cannot 
simply track the language of a statute without some underlying factual allegations to 
EFTA00175856

Case 9:08-cv-' 
81-KAM 
Document 52 
EntereL n FLSD Docket 10/ 
2008 
Page 9 of 10 
Case No. CV-80381-Marra-Johnson 
Page No. 9 
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Count III is required to be 
dismissed, and the reference to 28 USC 2455 be stricken. 
In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state the 
underlying factual allegations to support her claim as set forth in the statute, 18 
§2422(b) and §2455. 
Conclusion 
As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly,
supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state 
claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs complaint lack 
underlying factual allegations and, thus, Plaintiff is required to more definitely state the 
requisite factual allegations. Finally, Plaintiff should correct any improper statutory 
references. 
Certificate of Service 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with 
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the 
manner specified by CM/ECF on this 61h day of  October, 2008: 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. 
Stuart S. Mermeistein, Esq. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
60 
Fax: 
ahorowitzehermanlaw.com 
jhermanehermanlaw.com 
Iriveraehermanlaw.com 
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
We t 
ach, FL 33401-5012 
Fax: 
jaoescObellsouth.net 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
EFTA00175857

Case 9:08-cv-8 
11-KAM 
Document 52 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 10, 
008 
Page 10 of 10 
Case No. CV-80381-Marra-Johnson 
Page No. 10 
Michael R. Tein, Esq. 
Lewis Tein, P.L. 
3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 
Co 
• e, FL 33133 
Fax: 
Counse or e endant Jeffrey Epstein 
teinelewistein.com 
Respectfully subm 
By: 
ROBERT DCRITTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar 
4162 
AEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
mpikeebciclaw.com 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 
o-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00175858

'Case 9:08-cv-{ 
31-KAM 
Document 60 
Enteral 
FLSD Docket 02/2 
309 
Page 1 of 8 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRALIOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 5, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 
Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 5 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey 
Epstein, as follows: 
Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 
1. 
Jane Doe No. 5 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui 
juris. 
2. 
This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the 
Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a 
minor. 
3. 
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. 
4. 
This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. 
5. 
This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 
§1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; 
and (ii) is between citizens of different states. 
6. 
This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 
. §1391(a) as a substantial 
- I - 
EFTA00175859

Case 9:08-cv-: 
81-KAM 
Document 60 
Enteret. 
i FLSD Docket 0212 
309 
Page 2 of 8 
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. 
Factual Allention, 
7. 
At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 
years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to 
billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his 
principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, 
FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. 
8. 
Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for 
underage girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily 
economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave 
them money. In or about 2002-2003, Jane Doe, then approximately 15-16 years old, fell into 
Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. 
9. 
Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted 
girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. Thomas. 
10. 
Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. These 
underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary 
compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. The girls would be contacted when Epstein was planning 
to be at his Palm Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Upon information and belief, 
Epstein generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach 
County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" 
session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if 
allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. 
11. 
Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage 
-2-
EFTA00175860

'Case 9:08-cv-f 
31-KAM 
Document 60 
Enterer 
i FLSD Docket 02/2, 
309 
Page 3 of 8 
victim would be brought to the kitchen entrance of Epstein's mansion, where she would be 
introduced to 
Epstein's assistant. Ms. =would then bring the girl up a flight of 
stairs to a room that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings, and a bathroom. 
The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. 
He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove 
her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including 
masturbation 
12. 
Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was approximately 
15-16 years old, she was recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane and 
another girl were brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, to the kitchen entrance. Once there, 
they were introduced to 
who led them up the flight of stairs to the room with the 
massage table. Jane and the other girl were directed by Epstein to remove their clothes and give 
him a massage. Jane and the other girl removed their clothes except for their panties and bras, and 
complied with Epstein's instructions. While on the massage table, 
himself 
and touched both girls on their 
and 
13. 
After Epstein had completed the sexual assault, both girls were then able to get 
dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Epstein gave both girls money for this 
"massage." 
14. 
As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, 
humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. 
COUNT 1 
Sexual Assault and Battery 
- 3 - 
EFTA00175861

'Case 9:08-cv-1 
31-KAM 
Document 60 
Enterer 
i FLSD Docket 02/2 
D09 
Page 4 of 8 
15. 
Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs I through 14 above. 
16. 
Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent 
apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. 
17. 
Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane 
Poe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. 
18. 
Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person &Jane Doe, 
with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. 
19. 
Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts 
were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. 
20. 
Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were 
done willfully and maliciously. 
21. 
As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and 
will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and 
emotional damages. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey 
Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this 
Court deems just and proper. 
COUNT H 
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 
22. 
Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs I through 14 above. 
23. 
Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. 
24. 
Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds 
of decency. 
- 4 - 
EFTA00175862

'Case 9:08-cv-f 
31-KAM 
Document 60 
Enterec 
FLSD Docket 02/2 
)09 
Page 5 of 8 
25. 
Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted 
in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or 
emotional health to be significantly impaired. 
26. 
Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had 
reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and 
damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing 
severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. 
27. 
As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane 
Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey 
Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this 
Court deems just and proper. 
COUNT HI 
Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 
. O422 
28. 
PlaintiffJane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 
29. 
Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, 
induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or 
sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. 
30. 
On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 
and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf-
00938 1 AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and 
scheme as alleged herein. 
31. 
As to PlaintiffJane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of 
- 5 - 
EFTA00175863

'Case 9:08-cv-( 
31-KAM 
Document 60 
Enterer 
FLSD Docket 02/2 
)09 
Page 6 of 8 
Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections 1), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other 
criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §§ 798.02 and 800.04 (including 
subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). 
32. 
Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 
§2422. 
33. 
As a result of Epstein's violation of 18-. 
§2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal 
injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. 
34. 
Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a 
reasonable attorneys' fee. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey 
Epstein for all damages available under 18 
. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual 
and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as 
this Court deems just and proper. 
JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. 
Dated: February 27, 2009 
Respectfully submitted, 
By: 
s/ Adam D. Horowitz 
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 94724≤) 
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) 
MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. 
Attorneysfor Plaintiff 
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 
Miami, Florida 33160 
Tel: 
Fax: 
- 6 - 
EFTA00175864

Case 9t08-cv-( 
Si -KAM 
Document 60 
EntereL 
i FLSD Docket 0212 
309 
Page 7 of 8 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on February 27,2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this 
day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of 
Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those 
parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 
/s/ Adam D. Horowitz 
-7-
EFTA00175865

Case 9:08-cv-' 
81-KAM 
Document 60 
Enteret 
i FLSD Docket 02/2 
009 
Page 8 of 8 
SERVICE LIST 
DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Jack Alan Golc 
s
i
lber er Esq. 
Robert D. Critton. Es 
/s/ Adam D. Horowitz 
- 8 - 
EFTA00175866

Case 9:08-cv-8 
11-KAM 
Document 71 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 04 
009 
Page 1 of 7 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 5 
1. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Plaintiff, 
Defendant. 
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE 
DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his 
undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: 
1. Without knowledge and deny. 
2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment 
privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi I. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 
1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); (Viallov I. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth 
Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - 'Tit would be incongruous to have different 
standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared 
prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 
Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-
Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a 
specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants In civil actions. —
.. a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting 
EFTA00175867

Case 9:08-cv-e 
1-KAM 
Document 71 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 04/I 009 
Page 2 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 5 • Epstein 
Page 2 
the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute 
the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff 
bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 
3. As to the allegations in paragraph 3, deny. 
4. As to the allegations in paragraph 4, deny. 
5. As to the allegations in paragraph 5, without knowledge and deny. 
6. As to the allegations in paragraphs 6, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment 
privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi 1 Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 
1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy i Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth 
Amendment's Self-incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "lilt would be incongruous to have different 
standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared 
prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 
Fed.Prac. & Proc. Clv. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-
Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a 
specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — 
"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting 
the privilege [against self-incrimination), because affirmative defenses do not constitute 
the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff 
bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 
7. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 14 of Plaintiff's Second Amended 
Complaint, Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-
EFTA00175868

Case 9:08-cv-8 
;1-KAM 
Document 71 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 041 
009 
Page 3 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 5'. Epstein 
Page 3 
incrimination. See DeLisi I. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4111 DCA 
1983); Malloy'. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-
Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards 
determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, 
depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & 
Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination 
("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific 
denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil 
defendant who raises an affirmative defense Is not precluded from asserting the 
privilege [against self-Incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the 
kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing 
a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 
8. 
In response to the allegations of paragraph 15, Defendant realieges and adopts 
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth 
in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. 
9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to 
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 16 through 21 of the Second Amended 
Complaint. See DeLisi I. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41h DCA 1983); 
Malloy I. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 
Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amengment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the 
EFTA00175869

• 
Case 9:08-cv-8 
11-KAM 
Document 71 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 041 009 
Page 4 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 5 1 Epstein 
Page 4 
validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on 
whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d 
§1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must 
treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 
Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises 
an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-
incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary 
application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking 
affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 
10. In response to the allegations of paragraph 22, Defendant realleges and adopts 
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth 
in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. 
11. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-Incrimination to 
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 27 of the Second Amended 
Complaint. See DeLisl I Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); 
Malloy I Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 
Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment - "[l]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the 
validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on 
whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d 
§1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must 
treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 
EFTA00175870

Case 9:08-cv-E 
1-KAM 
Document 71 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 04/ 009 
Page 5 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 5 4 Epstein 
Page 5 
Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises 
an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-
incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary 
application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking 
affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 
12. In response to the allegations of paragraph 28, Defendant realleges and adopts 
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth 
in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. 
13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-Incrimination to 
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Second Amended 
Complaint. See DeLisi I Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41" DCA 1983); 
Malloy 
Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 
Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment - "[fit would be incongruous to have different standards determine the 
validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on 
whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d 
§1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must 
treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 
FIa.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises 
an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-
incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary 
EFTA00175871

Case 9:08-cv-8 
11-KAM 
Document 71 . 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 041 009 
Page 6 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 5 J  Epstein 
Page 6 
application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking 
affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff. 
Affirmative Defenses 
1. As to all counts, Plaintiff consented to and was a willing participant in the acts 
alleged. 
2. As to all counts alleged, Plaintiff consented to and participated in conduct similar 
and/or identical to the acts alleged with other persons which were the sole or 
contributing cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages 
3. As to all counts, Defendant reasonably believed that the Plaintiff had attained the 
age of 18 years old at the time of the alleged acts. 
4. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 
WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the roll sought by Plaintiff. 
Robert D. C on, Jr. 
Attorney fo 
efendant Epstein 
Certificate of Service 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with 
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the 
manner specified by CM/ECF on this 
day of  April  , 2009: 
EFTA00175872

Case 9:08-cv-e 
11-KAM 
Document 71 
Enteree 
FLSD Docket 04 
009 
Page 7 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 5'. Epstein 
Page 7 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
60 
ounsel or lainti Jane Doe 5 
Jack Alan Goldberger 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 
o- ounse or e endant Jeffrey Epstein 
Respectfully subm 
d, 
By: 
ROBERT D 
1TTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar 
224162 
rcritabcicla .com 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
ach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 
(Co- ounse orDefendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00175873

Case 9:08lcv-.. -381-KAM 
Documen. 
_ 
Entere, 
FLSD Docket 10/06. 
Page 1 of 10 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 5 
1. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Plaintiff, 
Defendant. 
DEFENDANT'S, EPSTEIN, MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE 
DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT 
Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves 
to dismiss and for more definite statement of Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 5's Amended 
Complaint. Rules 12(b)(6), and 12(e) and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008). In support of his 
motion, Defendant states: 
Introduction 
Defendant is filing similar motions to dismiss and for more definite statement 
directed to the Amended Complaints filed against Defendant in this Court in JANE DOE 
NO. 2, JANE DOE NO. 3, JANE DOE NO. 4 and JANE DOE NO. 5. The motions are 
directed to the Counts for "Sexual Assault and Battery," and "Coercion and Enticement 
to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 
. §2422" in each of the respective complaints. 
However, there are distinctions in the four motions filed based on the complaint 
allegations. For example, Defendant challenges the Plaintiffs' allegations as to assault 
in all four actions, and challenges the battery allegations in JANE DOE NOS. 2 and 3, 
but not in JANE DOE NOS. 4 and 5. Defendant moves to dismiss the §2422 count in all 
four actions. 
EFTA00175874