Epstein Secrets

rect. 21 Q. Do you remember when Mr. Epstein asked 22 where you went to school? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you told Mr. Epstein you went to 25 Wellington, right? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 6701716 EFTA00234286 Case 9:08-

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 [

rect. 21 Q. Do you remember when Mr. Epstein asked 22 where you went to school? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you told Mr. Epstein you went to 25 Wellington, right? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 63of 616 EFTA00180388 Case 9:08

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

rect. 21 O. Do you remember when Mr. Epstein asked 22 where you went to school? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you told Mr. Epstein you went to 25 Wellington, right? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 63 of 316 EFTA00180469 Case 9:0

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 [

that I was conducting an investigation on Jeffrey Epstein and felt she may have information " o the investigation. Ms identified and resides in Wellington, Florida. She herself as advised approximately a year lire was brought to Epstein's house to provide a massage for money. stated she ded to make

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 [