EFTA00180294

Cases9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 50 ohlci e 50 
restitution/damages 
32:19 
restrictions 43:18 
result 10:21 15:19 
18:20 
resulted 32:17 
review 31:3 36:22 
Richard 1:23 3:13 
26:10 
ride 40:17 
right 3:24 6:24 
12:25 13:3 25:8,14 
34:23 37:2041:3 
42:20 43:14 44:8 
rights 13:5 25:16 
32:7 
risk 9:6 10:6,7 18:25 
38:6 40:10 41:6,11 
risks 21:5 
Robert 2:1,8 4:2 6:3 
role 25:13 37:7 
Room 2:23 
Rosenfeldt 1:17 
rose-colored 11:16 
Rothstein 1:17 
RPR-CM-RMR-F... 
44:21 
RPR-RMR-FCRR... 
2:21 
rule 39:9 42:13 
rules 22:3 25:134:24 
40:15 42:13 
ruling 8:25 42:7 
rulings 192123:8 
25:2 27:13,15 30:6 
run 22:18 
running 21:13 23:14 
27:16 
S
same 6:10,16 8:3 
20:13 27:1231:12 
32:10 35:21 38:21 
satbfied 20:9 
saying 7:10 8:1 
17:17 19:12,16 
20:6,7,8 21:14 
25:5 331 37:10 
39:5 
says 8:15 13:7 17:1 1 
18:13 35:1 38:5 
40:14 41:3 
scheduled 4:21 
seal 5:18,23 
sealed 42:14 
second 2023 27:2,5 
30:24 36:25 37:4 
Secondly 41:20 
secret 17:1 
Section 33:7 
see 4:715:11 20:12 
seek 23:25 
seeking 6:7 24:3 
seeks 34:22 
seen 5:14,15 
selected 35:15 
self-fulfilling 24:23 
self-incrimination 
6:25 
send 10:16 38:17 
39:6 
sends 22:23 
sent 14:22,23,24 
16:617:10 39:15 
39:19 
separate 5:2017:17 
serve 11:5,6 
set 12:21 13:13 18:4 
31:22 36:9 
settle 21:8 
settling 21:10 25:5 
severely 2121 
sex 41:9 
sexual 23:6 
shape 11:4 
shield 29:1 
show 36:22 42:11 
Sid 3:10 
side 7:17,17 
sideline SS 
silent 2923 
similar 35:18 43:2 
simply 11:17 
since 2020 
sir 19:9 35:8 37:5 
41:15 
sit 8:9 
sitting 42:3 
situation 12:620:25 
25:12 26:24 
sole 29:21 
solely 12:15 32:10 
some 4:7 5:4 7:2,10 
7:11,12 9:1,8,9 
10:16 15:12 16:1,8 
17:22 20:25 21:3 
30:18 35:8 38:7 
43:13 
someone 10:17 1922 
24:20 26:3 34:12 
34:17 37:16 39:15 
something 13:19,24 
14:17 15:24 20:19 
26:1728:13 34:9 
37:21,23 38:4,9 
39:943:2 
Sometimes 13:4 
somewhat 6:5 
soon 44:15 
sorry 15:14 27:19 
sort 32:10 33:17 
34:19 
sought 31:11 
sound 37:16 
South 2:12 
SOUTHERN I:1 
speak 12:16 19:8 
speaking 26:14 32:2 
Special 21:2 32:16 
specific 8:2 11:1 
16:24 17:13 3025 
43:25 44:4 
specifically 43:7 
spector 11:18 
speculative 105 
spirit 25:20 
spoken 30:3 
standard 11:1 
standpoint 10:25 
15:9 
start 23:15 
state 3:3 9:6 28:4 
29:4 40:12,17 41:8 
stated 3:25 
statement 3323 
statements 43:9 
States 1:1,11 2:22 
4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 
9:24 10:6 13:21 
14:8,17 16:7 19:14 
22:10,19 29:9 39:4 
44:5,22 
State's 27:16 
statute 17:4 18:3 
20:6 24:14 28:7 
29:2136:4,7,11 
41:20 
statutory 6:12 24:25 
25:3 34:18 37:2 
stay 4:23 6:8,19,21 
7:3 11:24 12:16,19 
12:23 15:25 19:16 
2122 222,4,4,5,7 
2422252130:24 
33:14,15,16,21 
34:2,2 37:21,22 
42:5 43:4 44:1 
stayed 25:19 
staying 21:18 
steps 27:10 
still 5:7 
Street 2:2,6,9 
strictly 11:15 
strikes 36:12 
stuck 18:14 36:10 
stuff 34:19 
subject 5:3 26:5,21 
27:13 30:6 
submit 7:6 14:4 
submitted 42:15 
subpoena 11:9 34:17 
34:20 
subpoenaes 11:5 
subpoenas 1425 
22:21 38:18 39:19 
subsequently 6:9 
9:16 
substantial 9:6 
11:22,23 13:2 
18:25 41:11 
sue 7:17 
suffered 32:3 
suggest 8:10,23 
suggested 12:13,21 
14:16 15:5,6 36:3 
39:2 40:8,9 
suggesting 16:7 
suggestion 15:17 
41:25 44:10 
suing 25:10 
suit 20:2121:4 3222 
suits 2625 
summary 40:3 
supporting 15:16 
supposed 20:18 
2225 23:17 24:9 
29:1 
sure 5:7 14:11 262 
29:16 33:22 37:25 
Susan 3:17 
system 31:23 
s/Larry 44:20 
T44:17,17 
take 7:12 9:12 10:3,3 
10:12,13,21 11:12 
11:18,21,2214:7 
1421 16:16,16 
18:2 19:20 22:10 
27:9,10 29:3 33:1 
34:15,20 35:20 
38:7,17 41:14,22 
taken 7:7 9:11,21 
14:9 15:5 30:20 
41:10 43:5 
takes 18:17 
taking 9:8 14:23 
19:17 22:12,20 
23:15 25:20 34:8 
41:5 
talk 6:18 25:23 
team 4:14 12:3 
telephone 2:4,19,20 
3:19 
tell 11:13,14 42:12 
telling 21:13 22:9 
temporary 11:1 
terminates 34:4 
terms 9:3 22:7 33:20 
thank 19:1,227:8,21 
30:8,15 35:5,6 
42:17 44:7,13 
their 3:3,25 7:14,14 
8:10,16 9:25 11:8 
11:20 12:21 13:7 
14:21 15:6,10 
21:2123:6 27:5 
29:21 32:5,7,7 
themselves 32:4 
thing 25:4 27:12 
2821 31:11 39:11 
things 11:3 38:15 
39:22 43:10 
think 6:8,14 8:15 9:4 
9:22 10:19 11:22 
1224,25 13:6,6 
17:16 18:18,23 
19:14 25:13 27:6,6 
27:22 28:18 29:15 
30:23 39:6,8 42:1 
42:2,6 43:15 44:14 
third 11:6,11 14:25 
22:21 3920 
third-party 19:11 
21:16 25:14 
thoughts 27:2,5 
threatening 44:1 
three 41:14 
through 3:5 6:911:7 
11:16 29:14,22 
31:5,24 32:6,16 
till 14:2 
time 6:10,11,12,15 
6:19,20 13:3 17:5 
21:12 31:18,19 
34:4 36:3 37:2 
3821 
times 17:1918:2 
today 8:4 13:11 14:3 
14:6,6 15:5 28:17 
31:9,19 3523 
36:21 43:14 44:11 
44:14 
today's 13:12,14 
told 2320 35:23 
tools 1025 
tort 10:24 23:22 
24:4,6 
totally 20:5,21 23:1 
41:24 
TRANSCRIPT 1:10 
transcription 44:19 
trauma 32:3 
traumatized 21:21 
tried 31:3 32:6 
troubled 43:24 
true 17:12 
try 23:11 30:16 
32:18 34:17 44:15 
trying 10:1122:3 
28:25 32:9 37:8 
39:20 
turn 12:8 
two 4:13 9:23 19:25 
21:11 36:M 
type 12:15 22:13 
35:17 39:18 
types 22:16 36:24 
typical 11:2,4 22:15 
23:3,4,8 
U
ultimately 39:9 
unable 29:19 
uncertainty 9:14 
uncomfortable 
23:11 
under 5:17,17,23 
7:20 8:18 9:25 
EFTA00180354

'Cw;9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 51 ot§ae 51 
10:1,11,22 12:6,10 
12:20 13:7,8 16:8 
16:17,23 17:2,4,8 
17:12,18 18:4,8,19 
20:9,18,19,21 21:9 
22:724:8,11,18,20 
24:20 25:1,6 28:6 
30:12 31:21 3221 
32:23 33:7,10 
34:18,23 3524 
36:5,8,9 37:1,13 
3825 39:6,14 40:6 
40:21,23 41:1 
understand 5:7 
14:15 21:25 22:3 
23:24 29:25 30:14 
31:7 37:8 38:20 
39:25 
understanding 
20:10 
unfair 42:2 
unilateral 12:22 
unilaterally 7:13 
12:24 
United 1:1,11 2:22 
4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 
9:24 10:6 13:21 
14:8,17 16:7 19:14 
22:10,19 29:8 39:4 
44:5,22 
unless 11:7 34:25 
unlimited 40:21 
until 37:23 
urge 22:9 
use 10:25 11:8 20:24 
23:1128:25 40:11 
used 28:19 
U.S 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 
8:6 12:8,12 16:16 
26:19 27:4,18,19 
43:5,11,25 
U.S.A 2:16 
U.S.0 33:7 
I 
various 3:1 10:25 
very 4:21 5:711:1,2 
1120 12:21 16:19 
162417:12,12 
23:1129:4 32:1 
35:18 38:10 40:18 
42:2 43:18 44:14 
Via 2:4,19,20 
victim 37:13 
victims 20:12 21:20 
2823 31:12,16,23 
32:13 33:18 35:16 
39:20 41:17,18,19 
41:19 
9 
2:14 4:9 
4:10 171030:10 
30:15 33:24 34:14 
35:2,4,6,12 39:4 
44:9,12 
violate 19:18 34:6 
violated 5:2 14:2 
39:6 
violates 8:5,11 33:2 
42:25 
violating 9:16,19 
38:17 41:6 43:13 
violation 8:23 9:9 
10:4,19 11:20 12:7 
12:9 13:15,19,20 
13:23 14:10,19 
15:2 16:7 18:19 
24:19 25:19,20 
29:10 34:10,13,24 
35:12,24 37:17 
40:25 41:4 
violations 17:17,18 
17:24 18:1,16 
19:23 40:16 43:17 
43:22 
voluminous 31:4 
vs 1:6 3:1 5:17 
W 2:5 
wait 8:10 18:13 
42:12 
waive 25:14 
waiving 18:7 
want 8:9,10 11:15 
12:2 1622 17:20 
21:4,4,5,14 22:1,6 
25:17 26:2,8,16,18 
26:23 27:4 29:16 
35:7 37:21 41:17 
41:21 42:14,21 
44:9 
wanted 11:11 14:21 
17:5 20:12 29:15 
42:24 44:3 
wants 11:14 13:3 
19:2,16,20 23:4 
24:2433:16342 
warranted 6:22 
wasn't 2821 
way 8:23 9910:5,16 
10:19 11:4 13:16 
14:10 19:23 25:1 
25:18 27:3,4 28:22 
28:23 
ways 30:18 
wealthy 32:13 
weigh 26:11 
Weinberg 2:17 4:16 
4:16 
Webs 2:12 
well 7:10 8:20 10:22 
11:12,12,13,13 
12:17 13:16 14:11 
15:7 16:18 17:15 
17:23 18:10,11 
33:24 35:12,10,20 
36:5 39:4 40:13 
went 6:18,22 26:23 
32:16 43:19 
were 6:10 14:6 15:10 
18:719:11212 
29:23 31:17,18 
32:1,4,22 34:17 
36:24 43:144:10 
weren't 32:9 
West 1:2,4,2122,6 
2:10,13 
well 7:19,22 8:16 
1723 26:13 40:17 
we're 9:8 10:2 12:10 
13:14 19:10,12 
20:5 27:15 28:17 
39:1 43:14 44:2 
we've 15:4 35:23 
36:5 43:12 
whatsoever 27:7 
while 32:7 34:16 
35:14 
whole 20:12 38:11 
wide 26:24 43:19 
8:23 12:7 
wffithlly 9:19 
Willits 1:23 3:13,14 
26:10,10,14,15 
27:12,19 
win 29:5 
withdraw 28:8,11 
wondedhl 28:23,24 
word 24:21 
worded 3922 
worry 41:11 
Worth 124 
writing 28:13 
written 5.6 21.9 23:4 
X 
x 1:9 
yeah 41:3 
yesterday 21:9 
young 20:23 21:3,20 
81517:20 
$150,00032:21 
S50,00017:5 3221 
37:2 
0 
021162:18 
08 12:18,18 
08-80119-C1V-M... 
1:3 
1 
1 5:17 
10 36:15 
10th 123 
101 2:3,7 33:5 35:13 
35:17 38:23 39:3,7 
40:8 
102 6:8 35:19 36:1,3 
40:9 41:21 
103 21:5 35:19 
104 35:19 
105 35:20 
11:1044:16 
12 1:5 9:4 
12th 13:12 
13 7:14 9:4 
14 7:14 
150 17:19,20 18:2 
24:12 
172713 28:9 
18 33:7 
182051:14 
19 27:23 28:9 
2 
23:5 5:17 6:9,16 
29:14,22 
202:18 1725 18:2 
2009 1:5 13:12 
22 7:21 10:2 
224 121 
2255 1623 17:4,17 
17:18 18:8,12,14 
20:2,9,19,21 23:21 
2322,23 24:8,17 
24:2125:6 31:21 
32:21,23 331,10 
36:6,23 37:13 41:2 
22901:23 
25 2:2,6 
2502:12 
2620:4 
3 
3 1:18 
3017:16,19,19 
30-count 40:12 
305.358.28002:3,7 
305.523.5290 2:23 
305.931.2200 1:15 
305/523-5290 44:23 
305/523-5639 44:23 
336:179:1 
33128 2:23 44:23 
331302:3,6 
33160 1:15 
33301 1:18 
333942:16 
33401 1:21 2:10,13 
33461 1:24 
34 21:20 
4
41:18 11:12 
400 223 4422 
401 1:17 
S
51:18 6:9 
5th 12:18 
5018:2 24:12 
500 2:15 
515 2:9 
561.582.76001:24 
561.659.8300 2:13 
561.832.8033 1:22 
561.842.2820 2:10 
6
6 1:18 
617.227.3700 2:19 
7 
7 1:18 3:5 29:14,22 
36:15 
8 
8 36:15 
8N09 2:23 
9
9 36:15 
954.356.7255 2:16 
954.522.3456 1:19 
EFTA00180355

EFTA00180356

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Frebaiyi ciO4400 D.C. 
ELECT PrONIC 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 
JANE DOE, 
a/k/a JANE DOE #1, 
Plaintiff, 
Vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
and 
Defendants. 
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 
July 18, 2008 
STEVEN M. LARIMORE 
CLERK U.S. DISE. CI. 
5.D. OF FLA. • MIAMI 
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(a)(1), the defendants, 
Jeffrey Epstein, 
and 
, hereby remove this action' from 
Palm Beach County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Florida, and respectfully state as follows: 
Introduction 
Six months ago, this plaintiff filed virtually the identical lawsuit in this 
Court. See Jane Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. FM. filed 
Doe v. Epstein et at, Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (FM. 15th Cir. Ct. 
filed Mar. 6, 2008). 
Lewis 'reins. 
30$96amailonsuL Sum 340,CoColtui Gaon, Foram 33133 
1 01311 
EFTA00180357

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 3 of 100 
redacted, is attached hereto (Exhibit A). Two days later, counsel for Jane Doe # I 
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the First Federal Action. 
See Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. 
Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 
refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two 
nominal defendants: 
a, 
Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and 
MIS, one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants have nothing to 
do with the plaintiff's case against Mr. Epstein, except that the presence of Mit 
IS 
as a defendant in this new case, because she is a citizen of Florida (Am. 
Compl. ¶ 4), would ostensibly prevent complete diversity.2
As discussed below, however, 
ME 
was named in the reified 
lawsuit only to destroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 
U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court .3 Haley 
2 
Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a 
nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 
3 
Section 3509(k) of Title 18, United States Code, provides as follows: 
If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for 
damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending 
which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the 
victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the 
criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal 
proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is 
pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. 
3 
Lewis "rein s. 
3 o(31$ 
3059 GitiomAssm4, Sum 340. COCONUT GlIOVI. hogs 33133 
EFTA00180358

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 5 of 100 
Doe" lawsuits presently pending against Epstein, filed by this plaintiff's former 
lawyer. 
This case is properly removed to federal court, first, because there is 
complete diversity among the real parties-in-interest, second, because the amount 
in controversy exceeds $75,000, and third, because this Notice complies with the 
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 
Discussion 
A. This case is properly removable because it falls within the original 
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Florida. 
A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, 
originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 
(2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal 
district court, and it is the same case today. Even though it was reconfigured to 
look like a state-court lawsuit, this action falls squarely within the bounds of the 
diversity-jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (establishing that federal 
district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount in 
controversy [is more than $75,000] . . . and [when the controversy] is between 
citizens of different states"). 
5 
Lewis Tein ri. 
3059 GOANOAW P414,SUill 340. COCONUT Wort, f tomm 33113 
Sol 316 
EFTA00180359

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 7 of 100 
To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that 
"[w 'hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from 
state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in 
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement." Williams v. Best Buy Co., 
Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (1 1 th Cir. 2001). This case meets that standard, and 
satisfies the first prong of diversity jurisdiction. 
2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this 
controversy. 
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. 
Carden v. Arkoma 
Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the 
diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge 
v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs 
Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (1 I th Cir. 2005) (stating that "[c]omplete 
diversity requires that no defendant in a diversity action be a citizen of the same 
state as any plaintiff"). As demonstrated below, this case satisfies the statutory 
requirement of complete diversity. 
(a) Plaintiff Jane Doe is a citizen of Florida. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) 6
Jane Doc may, in fact, be a citizen of Georgia, not Florida, as she pled in her Amended 
Complaint. See New York Post, Jul. I, 2008 (reporting that "On his way into court [for 
his state-court guilty plea on June 30], Epstein was served with a copy of a lawsuit by 
Doe, who has since moved to another state."); Jane Doc Depo. at 77, 1 l2 (indicating that 
7 
Lewis Te in rt 
3059 Gismo Avititg, Suitt 340,Cocoma Goan, Fiona 3)133 
7 of 310 
EFTA00180360

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 9 of 100 
Oct. 15, 2007) (Moreno, J.) (citing Riley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 
Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002)); accord, e.g., Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 
590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (denying motion to remand where two resident 
defendants were joined for the fraudulent purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction). 
In this case, the plaintiff relies on her original allegations to support three causes of 
action against 
: civil conspiracy (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20-23); Intentional 
Infliction of Emotional Distress (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-28); and civil RICO (Am. 
Compl. ¶¶ 29-34). These allegations, however, do not support these claims, or 
any other theory of liability that would allow recovery against 
Cf. 
Parks v. The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir. 1962) (observing 
that "determination of fraudulent joinder is to be based on whether there was a real 
intention on colorable grounds to procure a joint judgment") (emphasis added).8
(a) Nonresident defendants have a right of removal. 
The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. 
Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (1Ith Cir. 2005). Cf, e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. 
Co., 513 F. Stipp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the 
fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 
8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the 
former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 
9 
Lewh:Fein n. 
3059 CUPID AWNIJI, Syllt 340. Cocowl GROW, flow 33131 
9 01316 
EFTA00180361

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 11 of 100 
action arising from an alleged sexual assault of a minor "shall be stayed until the 
end of all phases of [any] criminal action") (emphasis added). In this case, there is 
a parallel federal criminal grand jury action pending in the Southern District of 
Florida, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.), which arises out of 
the same allegations pled here. 
Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the 
plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. 
Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCRJWCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. 
Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on 
grounds that "the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in 
a case . . . where a parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same 
occurrence involving minor victims") (emphasis added). 
Even outside the context of a mandatory federal statute, "the Supreme Court 
Chas] admonished [that] `the Federal courts should not sanction devices intended to 
prevent a removal to a Federal court where one has that right, and should be 
equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court."' Legg, 428 
F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 
186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress `did not extend [to defendants 
a right of removal] with one hand, and with the other give plaintiffs a bag of tricks 
11 
Lewis "rein it 
3059 &Arcking/0mm 340,Cocorout Gkovi. FiccoA 33333 
It of 316 
EFTA00180362

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 13 of 100 
complaint contains four claims for relief, the first and second claims state only one 
cause of action") (emphasis added). Using her original allegations and adding 
nothing, Jane Doe has tried to add claims against 
for civil 
conspiracy (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20-23), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-28), and civil RICO (Compl. ¶¶ 29-34) in order to append a 
nondiverse defendant to her Complaint. These claims, however, are untenable 
under Jane Doe's own allegations, and therefore cannot be used to destroy 
diversity jurisdiction. 
(b) There is no ossibili 
that the plaintiff can establish a cause of 
action against 
under Florida law. 
(i) The conspiracy claim against Robson must fail. 
As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires 
an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 
(Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).1°
10 
This case is governed by the general rule. Cf. Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 353 
So. 2d 547, 550 (Fla. 1977) (noting that while there is "ordinarily . . . no independent tort 
for conspiracy," there is a narrow exception to this rule when "the plaintiff can show 
some peculiar power of coercion possessed by the conspirators by virtue of their 
combination") (emphasis added). See generally Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So. 2d 582, 583 
(Fla. 1950) (observing that 'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort 
are rare and should be added to with caution' (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 
609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, 
not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's 
injuries. Cf. Martin v. Mar/in, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 
13 
Lewis 'Fein ri. 
3039 Gime. Mimic, Sulu 310, Cacown Gum, Ftos 33133 
13 of 315 
EFTA00180363

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 15 of 100 
Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that 
where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious 
prosecution, there could be no civil-conspiracy claim in Count II "based on the 
allegations of Count I"). Because the statute she expressly pleads as the basis for 
Count I, Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, provides no civil remedy, Jane Doe cannot 
prevail on Count I. Therefore, she cannot prevail on her claim for conspiracy 
(Count II) to violate Chapter 800, Florida Statutes (Count I). 
(ii) The laintiff cannot prevail against nondiverse defendant 
on her claim for Intentional Infliction 
of Emotional Distress (TIED). 
Even if the plaintiff, for the sake of argument, can assert an LIED claim 
against Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff still does not have a cause of action for LIED 
against 
First, the plaintiff cannot recover damages in connection 
with her own illegal conduct; and second, the plaintiff's purported LIED claim fails 
as a matter of law. 
15 
LeVCrrin 
Pl. 
3059 GoosAvont, SUM 340, CocomuiGrovi, (tow* 33133 
1501310 
EFTA00180364

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 17 of 100 
omitted) (emphasis added); Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, (Ha. 4th DCA 
1998) ("[N]o public policy should allow appellant to recover damages as a result of 
engaging in criminal conduct such as occurred in this case."). Cf. Ewell v. Daggs, 
108 U.S. 143, 149 (1883) (stating that 'Inlo court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] 
who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act') (quoting 
Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that 
this policy is "not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not 
lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) 
(emphasis added); Bolas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) 
(Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an 
alleged prostitution house that "the court should continue its tradition of not 
interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions that are either illegal or are 
against public policy"). 
Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else (= 
) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. 
v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. 
Ct, 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from 
their own criminal acts, even though clients' lawyers had suggested the unlawful 
conduct to begin with). See also Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, 751 (Fla. 4th 
17 
Lewis 'rein N. 
3059 Gomm Avow!, Sol 340, Cocolv/ Goovi, FLovim 33133 
17 of 316 
EFTA00180365

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 19 of 100 
(iii) The plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim for civil remedies 
for criminal practices or racketeering ("civil RICO") pled in 
Count IV. 
A cause of action under section 772.104, Florida Statutes ("Civil Remedies 
for Criminal Practices") requires a showing of direct injury. Even assuming for 
the sake of argument that Jane Doe can establish that the defendants engaged in a 
"pattern of criminal activity," she cannot establish that she was directly injured by 
those activities. 
Section 772.104 allows someone to bring a civil RICO claim only if "he or 
she has been injured by reason of any RICO violation. § 772.104, Fla. Stat. 
(2007). Here, the allegations in Count IV, even if they are true, do not add up to a 
civil RICO claim because there is no proximate cause between the purported 
"pattern of criminal activity" and Jane Doe's alleged injuries. 
In a doomed attempt to satisfy the extremely high burden of pleading civil 
RICO under Florida law, the Amended Complaint lists a series of violations rooted 
in Florida's prostitution statutes. (Am. Compl. ¶ 31.) According to the Amended 
Complaint, the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise . . . or conspir[acy]" 
(Am. Compl. ¶ 30) over an unspecified length of time "to repeatedly find and 
bring [Jeffrey Epstein] underage girls . . . in order for Epstein to solicit, coerce, 
entice, compel, or force such girls in acts of prostitution and/or lewdness" (Am. 
19 
Levyjittysin rl. 
3059Comeo Anwut, Sunt 340,Corowl Gran, Firm* 13133 
190316 
EFTA00180366

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 21 of 100 
where petitioners alleged that they had "suffered emotional pain, anguish, 
humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of self-esteem, inconvenience, hurt and 
emotional distress" as a result of being forced repeatedly, over time, to "perform 
sexual acts to retain their employment"). Here, even if the Amended Complaint 
can be read to plead that the defendants schemed to solicit other massages from 
other people (see, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, I I, 12, 32), those activities are not 
alleged in any way to have impacted Jane Doe. CI, e.g., Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. 
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Ca, Inc., 881 So. 2d 565, 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) 
(holding that "'indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of 
predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO." (quoting 
O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) 
(emphasis added). 
Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-injury 
requirement under Florida's RICO law, Jane Doe has failed to allege a cause of 
action against 
for violation of section 772.103, Florida Statutes. 
B. This Notice satisfies the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 
I. This notice of removal is timely. 
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446, this notice of removal is timely. Only 
defendant Epstein has been served with process. Defendants 
21 
Lewis 'rein s. 
3059 GRANO AVIMO. WTI 340, Coco. to 6*Cal• /10/M33133 
2101316 
EFTA00180367

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 23 of 100 
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein, 
a, 
and Mi 
Ma, remove this case from Palm Beach Circuit Court to the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 
Respectfully submitted, 
LEWIS TEIN, P.L. 
3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 
Coconut 
Florida 33133 
Tel: 
Fax 
By: 
GUY A. LEWIS 
Fla. Bar No. 623740 
MICHAEL R. TEIN 
Fla. Bar No. 993522 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
By: 
Jack A. Goldberger 
Fla. Bar No. 262013 
Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
23 
LeyyisTsinn. 
)059 GIs. Avinui, Suet 310, [amour GAM. ham 33133 
23.1311 
EFTA00180368

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 25 of 100 
Service List 
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. 
Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 
2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 
Fax: 561 697 2383 
Counsel for Plaintiffiane Doe 
Douglas M. McIntosh, Esq. 
Jason A. McGrath, Esq. 
McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. 
Centurion Tower 
1601 Forum Place, Suite 1110 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Fax. 561 682-3206 
Counsel for DefendantMMI 
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. 
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Fax. 561 828 0983 
Counsel for Defendant 
Robert D. Critton, Esq. 
Michael J. Pike, Esq. 
Burman, Critton, Luttier & 
Coleman, LLP 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Fax. 561 515 3148 
Co-Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein 
25 
Lewis Teina 
3059 GammAriwi, Sun NO, Cocosui Giortjtatio• 33)33 
3903319 
EFTA00180369

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
ent 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 27 of 100 
nsor R Associates 
Rernninp and Tranicriptinch Mc. 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 2006 CF09454AXX 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
-vs-
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
DEPOSITION OF 
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 
2:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
205 North Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Reported By: 
C
iti
teY 
Judith F. Consor, FPR 
Notary Public, State of Florida 
Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription 
Phone - 561.682.0905 
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 
1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
27 of 315 
EFTA00180370

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
ent 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 29 of 100 
nsor & Associates 
Hopnrtua blIll Trams ripon, Inc 
1 
2 
WITNESS: 
INDEX 
Page 3 
PAGE: 
3 
DIRECT EXAMINATION 
4 
4 
BY MR. TEIN: 
5 
6 
7 
NOEXHIBITS 
MARKED 
8 
9 
 
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 
10 
Page 
Line 
53 
22 
11 
55 
1 
59 
2 
12 
111 
14 
112 
2 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
- 
- 
- 
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 
1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
21 o1316 
EFTA00180371

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
ent 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 31 of 100 
nsor & Associates 
Repaninp. end Traoscripsion. Inc 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
taken? 
13 
14 
Q. 
what is your address? 
15 
A. 
I'm currently living at my aunt's house and 
16 
I don't know it off the top of my head. 
17 
Q. 
Where is it? 
18 
A. 
In Jupiter. 
19 
Q. 
Who is your aunt? 
20 
A. 
Page 5 
my questions, will you just please let me know? 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
And if at any time you're not feeling well 
or something like that, you'll tell us, right? 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
Do you feel okay today? 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
Not taking any alcohol or drugs or anything 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
like that, right? 
A. 
No. 
Q. 
So you feel ready to have your deposition 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
Who else is living there? 
A. 
my uncle. 
Q. 
Anyone else living there? 
A. 
No. 
Q. 
The contempt motion that your mother filed 
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 
1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
3101311 
EFTA00180372

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
ent 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 33 of 100 
nsor gt Associates 
Itcponittp and Transcription. Inc. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
Q. 
Where is that? 
A. 
Palm Beach Lakes. 
Q. 
Have you spent the night over there? 
A. 
No, sir. 
Q. 
Do you know the address there? 
A. 
I do not. 
Page 7 
7 
Q. 
Isn't your sister 
planning on living 
8 
with you and Ili? 
9 
A. 
No. 
10 
Q. 
11 
criminal prosecution, correct? 
12 
A. 
Correct. 
13 
Q. 
And you know that it's a criminal 
14 
prosecution against a man who has no criminal background. 
15 
Do you know that? 
16 
A. 
I do now. 
17 
Q. 
You agree that court is a very serious 
18 
matter? 
19 
A. 
Yes. 
20 
Q. 
And you're here with your lawyer 
21 
Mr. Leopold, right? 
22 
A. 
Yes. 
23 
Q. 
And you know that Mr. Leopold recently 
24 
filed a lawsuit in federal court against Jeffrey Epstein, 
25 
seeking fifty million dollars. 
agyou know that this court case is a 
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 
1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
33 ol 316 
EFTA00180373