Epstein Secrets

rs beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of

ment 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 10 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 10 By:---------- ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive

ars beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46. 78 S.Ct. 99, 102. 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of

9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 7 of 7 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 7 By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (Counsel for Def

rs beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 10 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 10 Respectfully submi By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 3401 (Co-Counsel for Def

ars beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of

00175324 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 7 of 7 v. Epstein, et al. By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 rcrit@bcIcl w.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 moikeebdclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive,

nformed about subsequent developments in Rothstein’s prosecution. See Letter attached hereto as Exhibit | 92. Jeffrey Epstein filed a-complaint with the Florida Bar against Bradley Edwards, Esa, raising allegations that Edwards and others were involved in the wrongdoing of Scott Rothstein. After investigating the

ion to dismiss, factual adjudication is inappropriate as all facts asserted—or here, reasonably established—by the plaintiff are to be taken as true. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, at 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, at 101-102, 2 L.Ed. 2d 80, -1581 at 84.-As such, the court-has given recognition only to those assert