Epstein Secrets

From: Richard Kahn To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Alert: Cay

From: Richard Kahn To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Alert:

esentation claims that would effectively allow private rights of action under the Martin Act were pre-empted. Horn v. 440 ES7th Co., 151 A.D.2d 112 (1st Dept. 1989); Stephenson v. Citco Group Limited; Citco Fund Services (Europe) BV, 700 F.Supp.2d 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Barron v. lgolnick, 2010 WL 882890 (S.D

nd determined in that action.” AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dept. of Transp., ___S0.2d__, 2010 WL 1542634 at *2 (Fl

ugh his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Epstein seeks Summary Judgment on the claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution set forth in Brad Edwards’ Fourth Amended Counterclaim. Each of th

Epstein. Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a nexual preference for young children. Depos

ents, and world leaders are highly relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 1) ..00...0.. eee eceeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeneene 6 2. Meeting Bill Clinton at Jeffrey Epstein’s private island twice (Motion in Limine 2)..... 8 FOIA responses and related materials are admissible (Motion in Limine 3).................. 8 io)

er intervening causes of emotional distress and related damages (Motion in Limine 14) 23 15. Plaintiff's lies about her age and the year she met Mr. Epstein must be exposed to the Jury (Motion in Limine 15)... cccccccccccssenseecseeessecssecsecsseesseeeseecssessecsesteesteeens 24 16. All of Plaintiff’s m

aintiff's lies about her age and the year she met Mr. Epstein must be exposed to the Jury (Motion in Limine 15

F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (11th Cir. 1998) oo ccceeeeeseteeteesetseteeteesenes 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp., 257 N.Y.S.2d 706 (1st Dept. 1965)35 Sidor v. Reno, 95 CIV. 9588 (KMW), 1998 WL 164823, *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 7, 1998)... 25 United States v. Dukes, 727 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1984)