Epstein Secrets

ton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 515-3148 Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 s P Im Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NO

10/06/2008 41 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 3.7 Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 10/24/2008 (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 10/06/2008) 10 `06%2008 42 MOTION for More Definite Statement directed to amended complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. See image DE 4

it 41 Entered a,. .-LSD Docket 10,..../2008 Page 4 of 10 Case No. CV-80232-Marra-Johnson Page No. 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewiczt. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (200 ; Neitzli. Williams 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) Rule 12(

48 6 EFTA00222728 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2008 Page 7 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON By: Robert D. Critton, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 224162 [email protected] Michael J. Pike, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 617296 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epst

able right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru

ir) (Entered: 12/17/2008) 12/19/2008 29 F 360.1 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 12/19/2008) httos://ecfflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi bin/DktRptp17)85369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175331 CM/ECF -Live Datab

cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 4 of 7 . v. Epstein, et al. age 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506. 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992. 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827. 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru