Epstein Secrets

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and MB one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants

upp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the f

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: a, Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and MIS, one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defe

tipp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the f

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Mr= Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and MI one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defend

upp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the f

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and , one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants

. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the ----E4eventh-Gireuit-Geurt-ef-Appeels-adepted-as-binding-preeedent-aIl dwisiuns of 3ho

e Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refilled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants ha

pp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1.981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard. 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the -----Laieventh-Cifeklit-Goen-of-Appeals-adepted-as-binding-preeedent-all dvcisiuns of