Epstein Secrets

9 (1883) (stating that "`[n]o court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act'") (quoting Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is ("not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the court

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 [

149 (1883) (stating that 'Inlo court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act') (quoting Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is "not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the courts

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

49 (1883) (stating that "`[n]o court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal ace") (quoting Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is "'not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the court

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 [

49 (1883) (stating that "'[n]o court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff' who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal ace") (quoting Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is "not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the courts

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 [