Epstein Secrets

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

particular plaintiff in seeking personal pecuniary damages. Based on this reasoning, the Francis Compare Doe v. Fronds, Case No. 5:03cv260-MCR-WCS (N.D. Ha.), Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and for Status Conference (DE 92. available on PACER),

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

particular plaintiff in seeking personal pecuniary damages. Based on this reasoning, the Francis Compare Doe it Fronds, Case No. 5:03cv260-MCR-WCS (N.D. Ha.), Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and for Status Conference (DE 92, available on PACER),

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

particular plaintiff in seeking personal pecuniary damages. Based on this reasoning, the Francis Compare Doe it Fronds, Case No. 5:03cv260-MCR-WCS (N.D. Ha.), Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and for Status Conference (DE 92, available on PACER),

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

particular plaintiff in seeking personal pecuniary damages. Based on this reasoning, the Francis Compare Doe it Fronds, Case No. 5:03cv260-MCR-WCS (N.D. Ha.), Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and for Status Conference (DE 92, available on PACER),

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

particular plaintiff in seeking personal pecuniary damages. Based on this reasoning, the Francis Compare Doe it Fronds, Case No. 5:03cv260-MCR-WCS (N.D. Ha.), Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and for Status Conference (DE 92, available on PACER),