Epstein Secrets

anting the relief requested above, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. By: ROBERT D. C ITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.

e Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Amiens United States of America represented by Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 51 -3148 Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Un

tatutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (111h Cir. 2001)• U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins with the

se 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 18 of 21 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 18 WOW Respectfully su tted, MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 4162 RITT • k ■ • s llen COLEMAN (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) ' ENDNOTE: U

statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith EFTA00201195 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 7 of 21

te act relied upon. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs entire action. By: ROBERT D RITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. EFTA00222838 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 27 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 27

tatutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, •3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins with the