Epstein Secrets

x and U.S. Mail Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP April 13, 2009 Re: Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Case No. 09-80469-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON ADELQUI.LBENAVENTE rmukumALINVBSTIOMOR BARBARA M. NkKENNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RITA H. BUDNYK OP COUNSEL Dear Sid:

Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987). 6. Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F. Supp.2d 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001). EFTA00722697 M v. Epstein Page 2 7. Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia , 253 Fed. Appx. 224

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Di

ts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute. . . "); Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, EFTA00729113 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 5 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 i . Fla. 2001); and Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 253 Fed.Appx. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Di

ts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute. . . "); Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, EFTA00729108 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 5 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 i . Fla. 2001); and Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 253 Fed.Appx. 2

o M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law firm P.A. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP April 13, 2009 Re: Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Case No. 09-80469-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON ADELQUI.LBENAVENTE rmemeom. I INVBSTIOMOR BARBARA M. NkKENNA ASHLER STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RUA H. BUDNYK OP COMPEL Dear Sid:

Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987). 6. Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F. Supp.2d 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001). EFTA00614427 v. Epstein Page 2 7. Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia , 253 Fed. Appx. 224 (3d

tered on FLSD Docket 06)12'2009 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant's, Epstein. Motion To Dismiss, For More Definite Statement & To Strike Directed To Plainti

, citing Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987)(congress intended RICO to exclude personnel injuries). 14. at 348. In Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001), the court held that claims for money damages relating to nursing home patients' deaths following massi