Epstein Secrets

. 2008) (same). On February 20, amid these filings, Jane Doe #1 was deposed in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502006CF009454AXXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct., filed Jul. 19, 2006), a parallel state-court criminal action. During that deposition, she made numerous admissions that completely undermined the

fically "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 [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

this Court. See Jane Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. FM. filed Doe v. Epstein et at, Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (FM. 15th Cir. Ct. filed Mar. 6, 2008). Lewis 'reins. 30$96amailonsuL Sum 340,CoColtui Gaon, Foram 33133 1 01311 EFTA00180357 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1

fically "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 [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 6

. 2008) (same). On February 20, amid these filings, Jane Doe #1 was deposed in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502006CF009454AXXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct., filed Jul. 19, 2006), a parallel state-court criminal action. During that deposition, she made numerous admissions that completely undermined the

fically "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 [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

. 2008) (same). On February 20, amid these filings, Jane Doe 41 was deposed in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502006CF009454AXXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct., filed Jul. 19, 2006), a parallel state-court criminal action. During that deposition, she made numerous admissions that completely undermined the

fically "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 [of removal] granted to In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661