Epstein Secrets

16 01316 EFTA00234239 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 17 of 100 omitted) (emphasis added); Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("[N]o public policy should allow appellant to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct suc

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 [

1501310 EFTA00180364 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 17 of 100 omitted) (emphasis added); Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, (Ha. 4th DCA 1998) ("[N]o public policy should allow appellant to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct such

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

16 316 EFTA00180422 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 17 of 100 omitted) (emphasis added); Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("[N]o public policy should allow appellant to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct suc

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 [

16 o1316 EFTA00231028 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 17 of 100 omitted) (emphasis added); Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, (Ha. 4th DCA 1998) ("[N]o public policy should allow appellant to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct such

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 [