Epstein Secrets

vt, kouo• 33133 5 of 316 EFTA00234229 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution

GEM% FM1:433133 I of 311 EFTA00180412 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "Ewlhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution

Gam, rims33133 9 a/ 31$ EFTA00231018 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[wjhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution

iovt. NOM* 33133 Go1316 EFTA00232138 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KANI Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution