Epstein Secrets

f writing health insurance for individuals and groups as well as various lines of property and casualty coverages. 5- Hoffenberg is a resident of the State of New York, and at all relevant times, was Chairman of the Board of Directors of United Fire, Associated, Diversified, Towers Diversified and Towers Financia

The funds were then transferred to an account in the name of United Fire Insurance Company with the brokerage firm of Guinan and Company, Inc. in the State of New York, contrary to law. Within the -15- amn%; wv 7C:I I IVJ C11)7_4,7...fly EFTA00612532 following five days, 531,300 shares of Emery were acquired i

remaining Counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1332(a). 12. Plaintiff resides in this District. In addition, the claims arose in this District. Venue in the Northern District of Illinois is, therefore, proper under 28 U.S.C. $ 1391(a). Factual Background 13. This is an action for money damages against several former me

in the corporation. Claire was represented in the preparation of these agreements by defendant Green- spoon. Greenspoon is a member of the bar of the State of New York. He had, before and after the preparation of these agree- ments, represented Claire in personal mat- ters. Additionally, Greenspoon had at times r

com- puter system sold to corporation. After removal from state court to federal court in Minnesota on basis of diversity, followed by transfer to the Northern District of California, seller moved to dismiss claims as time barred. Following denial of ma tion, counsel for defendant was directed to submit memorandu

use this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor. 3. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. 4. This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. 5. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuan

tigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe I. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WL 950623