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

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [

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

ht of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (1Ith Cir. 2005). Cf, e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Stipp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right

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

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [

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

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [