Epstein Secrets

ess is .... Ga.," and stating that - S.D.G. is also the unnamed party in a lawsuit filed by her father on her behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-80069, which was filed without the consent of the mother"), In re Sandberg v. Gonzalez, Case No. 50 2008 DR 001141 (Palm Be

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 [

Robert Senior, Esq. Black. Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf. P.A. EFTA00180301 March 20, 2011 To whom it may concern: I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears distorted.

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

ress is .... Ga.," and stating that "S.D.G. is also t e unnamed party in a lawsuit filed by her father on her behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-80069, which was filed without the consent of the mother"), In re Sandberg v. Gonzalez Case No. 50 2008 DR 001141 (Palm Bea

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 [

ress is .... Ga.," and stating that "S.D.G. is also the unnamed party in a lawsuit filed by her father on her behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-80069, which was filed without the consent of the mother"), In re (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) . If this turns out to be th

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 [