Epstein Secrets

Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Siegel, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Ex Post Facto Clause barred application of the EFTA00201264 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009

.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 21 By: ROBERT D. C ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 3401 unse or e en ant Jeffrey Epstein) 1 See 18 U.S.C. §2707(c), of the Stored Communications Act for provision at issue. Title 18. Crimes and Cr

0 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ. 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading spe

Page 7 of 7 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 7 By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00201297

the pleading standard formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twomblv, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading sp

Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein Es counser or Kaustilt—Jane Doe #7 Respectfully submitted, By: ROBE JR., ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00221194

mining whether the exceptional circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action in favor of the first filed action. As explained in by the Eleventh Circuit in American Bankers Ins. Co., because EPSTEIN is seeking dismissal of this action in deference to a pending state court action, "it is governed by

Avenue South Suite 1400 01-5012 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully sub By: MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. R., ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 Watt Palm Roartt Fl 33401 (Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) ENDNOTES: 1 In paragraph 11 of her Complain

0 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (111h Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading sp

ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 rcrit@bcIcl w.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 moikeebdclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax ounce or .efendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00175325 CM/ECF - !Ave Database -

L/slm I Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, Sag Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981). K&E 19439748.2 EFTA00193952 EFTA00193953

Judicial Circuit Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON of BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 842-2820 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER of ATTEltBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250