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

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 Marra stated "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipu

#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

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 Marra stated "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipu

#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

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 Marra stated "[tie Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipul

#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

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 Marra stated "[tie Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipul

#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

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 Marra stated "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipu

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

million - - well over the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. See Jane Doe No. 2 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 3 at D.E. I ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 4 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 5 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4. 3. There is complete diversity. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete divers

f Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 1. That TINMIIIIIhas been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and 2. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, 1 MN has refused to testify and provide ot

the person whom Petitioners refer to as "Jane Doe 5" also had been approached by the investigative team in 2007 but refused to speak with them. (See D.E. 14 at 1 3.) Regardless of the perceived strength of the corroborating evidence, it was and remains my professional opinion as an experienced prosec

al. * John M. Fitzgibbons, Asst. U.S. Any., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant. Frank Regano, Tampa, Fla., for defendant- appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Before HILL and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal f

EPSTEIN upon her, Plaintiff intends to rely exclusively on the statutory damages, rather than those damages which are available at common law. (See D.E. 113). If however, the Court rules that the statutory floor applies only one time, regardless of the number of times EPSTEIN committed an enumerated