Epstein Secrets

art S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miam

of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v

fied on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this Wt8 y of , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #7 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss,

ress," such claims are subject to the constitutional limitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Liqoet Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due P

fied on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this ___ day of 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss,

ress,° such claims are subject to the constitutional limitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Ligget Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due

ed on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of ww , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #6 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. iCo-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respec

ress," such claims are subject to the constitutional limitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Liqqet Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due P