EFTA00182748

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 152 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 1 of 8 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 3, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 4, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 5, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRALJOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-8038I-MARRA/JOHNSON 
EFTA00182748

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 152 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 2 of 8 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 2 
JANE DOE NO. 6, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 7, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE, 
CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
Defendants. 
DOE II, 
CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
Defendants. 
EFTA00182749

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 152 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 3 of 8 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 3 
JANE DOE NO. 101, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 102, 
CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRAMOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 101 AND 102'S 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE 
NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT (dated 5/29/09, IDE 1281 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned 
attorneys responds to the Plaintiffs' Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 ("Plaintiffs") 
Motion For Leave To File Under Seal Response In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Stay 
Or, In The Alternative, To Unseal The Nonprosecution Agreement, and states: 
1. 
This Court has already entered orders preserving the confidentiality of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement ("NM") and denying prior attempts to have the document unsealed. See 
Court's Orders, attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively, entered in In Re: Jane 
Does 1 and 2. Petitioners Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, A. Order To Compel 
Production And Protective Order, [DE 26], dated August 21, 2008, and B. Order [DE 36], dated 
February 12, 2009, on Petitioners' Motion To Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement [DE 28]. 
Both of these Orders are clear that the terms of the NPA are to remain confidential and remain 
EFTA00182750

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 152 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 4 of 8 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 4 
protected from being disclosed to third parties. The NPA is an agreement between the United 
States Attorney's Office and EPSTEIN. Plaintiffs' motion presents nothing in support of this 
Court modifying its prior orders. 
2. 
Significantly, even the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), along with 
Defendant, has strongly opposed making the NPA public. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is 
Respondent United States of America's Opposition To Victims' Motion To Unseal Non-
Prosecution Agreement, dated October 8, 2008, [DE 29], also filed in In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2, 
Petitioners, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. In opposing the petitioners' attempts 
to make public the terms of the NPA, the United States in the Response, Exhibit C, stated: 
Since the Agreement (NPA) has not been filed under seal with this Court, the 
legal authority cited by petitoners regarding sealing of documents, United States v. 
Ochoa-Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005), is inapposite. The parties who 
negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein, 
determined the Agreement should remain confidential. They were free to do so, and 
violated no law in making such an agreement. Since the Agreement has become 
relevant to the instant lawsuit, petitioners have been given access to it, upon the 
condition that it not be disclosed further. Petitioners have no legal right to disclose 
the Agreement to third parties, or standing to challenge the confidentiality provision. 
After the United States' response, Exhibit C, this Court entered its Order, Exhibit B, 
agreeing with the United States' position and maintaining the confidentiality of the NPA in 
accordance with its prior Order, Exhibit A. The "victims" who were provided a copy of the 
NPA were and are required to maintain the NPA's confidentiality and not disclose the terms to 
third parties. 
3. 
Other parties in the consolidated cases have been able to file their responses 
without a similar request being made. Defendant believes that these Plaintiffs can fully respond 
without the need to file under seal; and reference provisions generally. However if the Court is 
EFTA00182751

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 152 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 5 of 8 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 5 
inclined to grant this Order, then in order to continue to protect the confidentiality of the NPA 
and to comply with the Court's prior Orders, Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Defendant would agree 
to allow Plaintiff to file under seal ligl• response and reference only those portions (identified 
herein) of the NPA which are potentially relevant to the issues arising under claims brought 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 and thus, that may have impact on Defendant's motion for stay and 
Plaintiff's response thereto. Specifically, the only portions relevant for this Court to make a 
decision on Defendant's motion and Plaintiffs' response are paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and10 of the 
NPA, and paragraphs 7A, 7B, and 7C of the Addendum To The NPA. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an Order denying any attempts 
by Plaintiffs to unseal or make public or to disclose to third parties the terms of the NPA, and to 
deny Plaintiffs move to file their response under seal; or if the Court is inclined to grant the 
motion, to allow Plaintiff to file her response to the motion to stay and only the specified 
portions of the NPA and Addendum thereto under seal. 
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  10th  day of  June  , 2009 
Respectfully sub 
tted, 
By: 
ROBERT D. R1TTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
BURMAN, CROTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
EFTA00182752

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 152 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 6 of 8 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 6 
Phone 
Fax 
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00182753

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 152 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 7 of 8 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 7 
Certificate of Service 
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein 
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Miami FL 3 160 
Fax: 
ssmasexabuseattomev.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 
08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 
Richard Horace Willits, Esq. 
Richard H. Willits, P.A. 
2290 10ib Avenue North 
Suite 404 
Lake Worth. FL 33461 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 
80811 
Brad Edwards, Esq. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard 
Suite 1650 
Fort Laud rdal F1.33301 
Phon • 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
80893 
Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 
Pro Hac Vice 
332 South 1400 E, Room 101 
Salt T. aka City, UT 84112 
Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 
08- Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. 
Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 
224 Datura Street, Suite 900 
ch, FL 33401 
Jack Scarola, Esq. 
Jack P. Hill, Esq. 
Scatty Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 
P.A. 
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 
West Palm Beach, FL 33409 
Counsel for Plaintiff, 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
80469 
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. 
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800 
130 
EFTA00182754

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 152 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 8 of 8 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 8 
Bruce Reinhart, Esq. 
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 
250 S. Australian Avenue 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Counsel for Defendan 
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. 
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 
Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 
2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
08804 
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 
09-80591 and 09-80656 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
Beach, FL 33401-5012 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
EFTA00182755

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 1 of 10 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 7 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE 
DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S (FIRST) AMENDED COMPLAINT 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his 
undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [DE 19] 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 v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 
1099 (Fla. 41" DCA 1983); Malloy v. 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. 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. - 
EFTA00182756

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 2 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v: Epstein 
Page 2 
"... 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. 
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 v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 
1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) Malloy v. 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 - "pit 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. 
EFTA00182757

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 3 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein 
Page 3 
7. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 15 of Plaintiff's Second Amended 
Complaint, Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-
incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 
1983); Malloy v. 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 - "[lit 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 16, Defendant realleges and adopts 
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth 
in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein. 
9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to 
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 17 through 22 of the Second Amended 
Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41" DCA 1983); 
Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 
EFTA00182758

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 4 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein 
Page 4 
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. 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 23, Defendant realleges and adopts 
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth 
in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein. 
11. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to 
the allegations set forth In paragraphs 24 through 28 of the Second Amended 
Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); 
Malloy v. 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 
EFTA00182759

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 5 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein 
Page 5 
§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. 
12. In response to the allegations of paragraph 29, Defendant realleges and adopts 
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth 
in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein. 
13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to 
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 30 through 35 of the Second Amended 
Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); 
Malloy v. 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-
EFTA00182760

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 6 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein 
Page 6 
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. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff. 
Affirmative Defenses 
1. As to all counts, Plaintiff actually consented to and was a willing participant in the 
acts alleged, and therefore, her claims are barred, or her damages are required to be 
reduced accordingly. 
2. As to all counts alleged, Plaintiff actually 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, Plaintiff impliedly consented to the acts alleged by not objecting 
and by going to Defendant's home with other females and/or by bringing other females 
to Defendant's home for which Plaintiff received money; and therefore, her claims are 
barred, or her damages are required to be reduced accordingly. 
4. As to all counts, Defendant reasonably believed or was told that the Plaintiff had 
attained the age of 18 years old at the time of the alleged acts. 
5. As to all counts, Plaintiff's claims are barred as she said she was 18 years or 
older at the time. 
6. As to all counts, Plaintiff's alleged damages were caused in whole or part by 
events and/or circumstances completely unrelated to the incident(s) alleged in the 
complaint. 
EFTA00182761

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 7 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein 
Page 7 
7. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 
8. As to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages in Count I — "Sexual Assault & 
Battery," and Count II — "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," such claims are 
subject to the limitations as set forth in §768.72, et seq., Florida Statutes. 
9. As to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages in Count I — "Sexual Assault & 
Battery," and Count II — "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," such claims are 
subject to the constitutional limitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North 
America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996)• Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 
(2007)• State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Ligget Group, Inc., 945 
So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution and Florida's Constitution, Art. I, §§2 and 9, prohibit the 
imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments 
10.As to Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages in Count I — "Sexual Assault & 
Battery," and Count II — "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," the determination of 
whether or not Defendant is liable for punitive damages is required to be bifurcated from 
a determination of the amount to be imposed. 
11. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for sexual assault and/or battery 
under Count I. 
12.As to Count III, Plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action as she does not and 
can not show a violation of a predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005). 
EFTA00182762

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 8 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein 
Page 8 
13.As to Count III, the version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 in effect at the time of the alleged 
conduct applies, and, thus, the presumptive minimum damages amount should Plaintiff 
prove the elements of such claim Is $50,000, and not subject to any multiplier. 
14.As to Count III, application of the amended version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, effective 
July 27, 2006, would be in violation of the legal axiom against retroactive application of 
an amended statute, and also In violation of such constitutional principles, including but 
not limited to, the "Ex Post Facto" Clause, U.S. Const. Article I, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1, and 
procedural and substantive due process, U.S. Const. 14th Amend., 5th Amend. The 
statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct applies. 
15.As to Count III, application of the amended version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, effective 
July 27, 2006, is prohibited pursuant to the vagueness doctrine and the Rule of Lenity. 
A criminal statute is required to give " 'fair warning ... in language that the common 
world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make 
the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.' " United States v. Lanier, 
520 U.S. 259, 265, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) (quoting McBovle v. United 
States 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931)) (omission in original). The 
"three related manifestations of the fair warning requirement" are: (1) the vagueness 
doctrine bars enforcement of a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an 
act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its 
meaning and differ as to its application; (2) the canon of strict construction of criminal 
statutes, or rule of lenity, ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal 
statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered; (3) due process bars courts from 
EFTA00182763

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 9 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein 
Page 9 
applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor 
any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope. 
16. The applicable version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 creates a cause of action on behalf of 
a "minor." Plaintiff had attained the age of majority at the time of filing this action, and 
accordingly, her cause of action is barred. 
17.Because Plaintiff has no claim under 18 U.S.C. §2255, this Court is without 
subject matter jurisdiction as to all claims asserted. 
18.Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in 
violation of the constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and 
the Rule of Lenity, in that in amending the term "minor to "person" as to those who may 
bring a cause of action impermissibly and unconstitutionally broadened the scope of 
persons able to bring a §2255 claim. 
19. 18 U.S.C. §2255 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14'h Amendment 
under the U.S. Constitution, and thus Plaintiff's claim thereunder is barred. 
20. 18 U.S.C. §2255 violates the constitutional guarantees of procedural and 
substantive due process. Procedural due process guarantees that a person will not be 
deprived of life, liberty or property without notice and opportunity to be heard. 
Substantive due process protects fundamental rights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cause of 
action thereunder is barred. 
WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the 
lief sought by Plaintiff. 
Robert D. ritton, Jr. 
Attorney f. r Defendant Epstein 
EFTA00182764

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM 
Document 86 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 
Page 10 of 10 
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein 
Page 10 
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 recorthidentified on the following Service List in the 
manner specified by CM/ECF on this ur Tay of1444-..-•, 2009: 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #7 
Jack Alan Goldberger 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
ach, FL 33401-5012 
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
Respectfully submi d, 
By: 
ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar o. 
MICHAEL J. PIKE ESQ. 
Florida Bar
BURMAN, CRIl TON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
ach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 
(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00182765

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 1 of 13 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 3, 
Plaintiff; 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 4, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 5, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJJOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON 
EFTA00182766

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 2 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 2 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 6, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 7, 
Plaintiff; 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE, 
CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON 
EFTA00182767