Epstein Secrets

#214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and denied in part accordance with the terms herein. BACKGROUND On July 20, 2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marr

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

#214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and denied in part accordance with the terms herein. BACKGROUND On July 20, 2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marr

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

#214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and denied in part accordance with the terms herein. BACKGROUND On July 20, 2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marr

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

#214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and denied in part accordance with the terms herein. BACKGROUND On July 20, 2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marr

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

#214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and denied in part accordance with the terms herein. BACKGROUND On July 20, 2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marr

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(a)(1), the defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and 1 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: 1. This case is within the original jurisdiction of this Court. This cas

Case 9:08-cv-80811-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 5 of 40 5. The State Court docket has been filed. All papers filed in the State Court are attached to this Removal Petition. Conclusion Because this is a civil action between citizens of different states, excluding any fraudulently

ith 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(aX1), 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: 1. This case is within the original jurisdiction of this Court. This cas

#12 in the case of JANE DOE, a/k/a. JANE DOE NO. 1 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al. Case NO.08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON should it be Returned to EPSTEIN by the State Court, and expedite the duplication of this evidence immediately upon its return, in advance of any Rule 26 conference. EFTA00175478 Case 9:08-cv-86, .