Epstein Secrets

f sought the relief being sought here or that the events complained of in Tilton occurred on multiple occasions. In fact, it appears clear from the Opinion that the pro se Defendant that 14 EFTA00222886 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 15 of 19 the Plainti

n, but it was a damages remedy that already existed at the time of Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor. Hence, here, unlike Landsgraf, there was an existing civil remedy prior to Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor Plaintiff, and there continues to be such

Plaintiff has not been able to 12 EFTA00222884 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 13 of 19 dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r

aintiff sought the relief being sought here or that the events she complained of occurred on multiple occasions. In fact, it appears clear from the Opinion that the pro se Defendant that Plaintiff prevailed against by default was sued for a singular violation of recording the Plaintiffs sexually oriente

y not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.1° As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r

aintiff sought the relief being sought here or that the events she complained of occurred on multiple occasions. In fact, it appears clear from the Opinion that the pro se Defendant that Plaintiff prevailed against by default was sued for a singular violation of recording the Plaintiff's sexually orient

y not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.10 As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r