Epstein Secrets

o no no i love you...o and p.s. i love ur default pic 12 niggaa. Muah xo. 13 Q. Did you send that message last week to a 14 friend of yours on MySpace? 15 A. I wouldn't know. There's no dates and I've 16 deleted that MySpace, so -- 17 Q. We're going to talk about that in a second. 18 A. Ok

Q. Did you send that message last week to a 14 friend of yours on MySpace? 15 A. I wouldn't know. There's no dates and I've 16 deleted that MySpace, so -- 17 Q. We're going to talk about that in a second. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Did you send that message last week -- 20 A. Right. 21 0. Le

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [

ransotiption, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Page 65 Q. When did you delete your MySpace page? A. A couple days ago. Q. Who told you to take your MySpace page down a couple of days ago? A. Nobody. I'm sick and tired of MySpace. Q.

your MySpace page? A. A couple days ago. Q. Who told you to take your MySpace page down a couple of days ago? A. Nobody. I'm sick and tired of MySpace. Q. You all of a sudden got sick and tired of MySpace and just a few days before this deposition you decided to delete your MySpace page, correct

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [

o no no i love you...o and p.s. i love ur default pic 12 niggaa. Muah xo. 13 Q. Did you send that message last week to a 14 friend of yours on MySpace? 15 A. I wouldn't know. There's no dates and I've 16 deleted that MySpace, so -- 17 O. We're going to talk about that in a second. 18 A. Ok

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [

9:08-cv-80804-KAM p. Q. ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 45 of 100 nsor & Associates RolortinpamITranscrimitm,Im. 1 2 yoirs on MySpace? 3 A. Sure, yes. Page 19 Did you send that message to a friend of 4 Q. Were you referring to this deposition? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you fin

ht 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