Epstein Secrets

Justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d

ant Jeffrey Epstein Date Filed: 05/01/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Katherine Warthen Ezell Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami FL 33130-1780 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATT

filed by Jane Doe No. 101.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/01/2009) 05/01/2009 8 r 173 KB RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Jane Doe No. 101. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/01/2009) 05/01/2009 9 ri 61.2 KB First AMENDED COMPLAINT and Demand For Jury Trial, filed by Jane Doe No. 101.(Ezell

e 6 of 7 Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/04/2009 28 ORDER STRIKING (112 in 9:08-cv-80381-ICAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM, 136 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 11

suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96

p-p:.i.,~.:.., 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Str

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Er Post Facto Clauses, one d

l counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of , 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldbe

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Er Post Facto Clauses, one d

l counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of , 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 [email protected] kezell@p

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective applicagion under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FNI9. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one dir

ll issues triable as of right by a jury. Date: ‘44..Art.AA-r-12)-3 , 2010. Respectfully Submitted, By: R-W- C. e-pecli lay Robert r Jose e g Katherine W. Ezell Attorneys or Plaintiff Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 17 25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800„ Miami, FL 33130, Miami 31:6393.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lau