Epstein Secrets

sed minimum. As explained by the Landqraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,2 2 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before EFTA00201268 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78

.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 21 By: ROBERT D. C ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 3401 unse or e en ant Jeffrey Epstein) 1 See 18 U.S.C. §2707(c), of the Stored Communications Act for provision at issue. Title 18. Crimes and Cr

of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new 3 In Landoraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

Avenue South Suite 1400 01-5012 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully sub By: MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. R., ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 Watt Palm Roartt Fl 33401 (Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) ENDNOTES: 1 In paragraph 11 of her Complain

of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new 3 In Landoraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

ant Jeffrey Epstein Respectful) By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 reritAbcicl w.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 ch, FL 33401 Fax: (Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00175273 Caie 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20