Epstein Secrets

RINCESS CmfaPe. AJ41 112 a., kin inn t Cling lien. AShis i. vont 310 SO ICO. ttiti fel l053) 211-033 10S3) 211-011 migolifunpa tHrp (uulut) IP 3.EPSTEIN Royal Princess. Chiang Nal, J8/10/02 IIIIII/IllOtrOAIITO III041141; lit n.dlmnm ellissui o1Da 0.04:41,40 sotoo 12:51 bit (013) 211 -033 WOW (03

in a to 1 $11702 Guest's signature Dale EFTA00188680 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 20 of 28 11 J.EP.STEIN Royal Princess, Chiang Nal, 19/10/02 13:07 ROYAL PRINCESS O94/4 Alm I U Camir, lJan 114.4. Mon( I)44. A M.A.,. O4.4..44 W1O.4 TA: (0331 201.033

w about if I call you at 2 tomorrow? 1. The CVRA case is a Complaint about whether certain statutory rights were violated by the Govt. The Govt not JE is the defendant. Whether JD 3 or JD 4 are or are not victims is not the test of whether they are proper petitioners: they also must allege a basis

. . in the original pleading." Because the original petition in this case alleged that the Government violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this case would relate back to the date the petition was filed: July 7, 2008. This relation back eliminates any s

ered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 24 of 28 1, SHOPPERS TRAVEL, INC. SHOPPERS TRAVEL AGENT RS/RS BOOKING RFF ZXL1 07 303 5TH AVENUE NEW YORK J EPSTEIN 457 MADISON AVE 4TH FLOOR NEWYORK NY 10027 DATE: SEP 27 2002 DOE 3 RECORD TERMS; PAYMENT OUE UPON PRESENTATION SINGAPORE AIRLINES 27SEP NEW

nt violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this

e entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-I at 3 (emphasis added). This descriptio

ction or defense on the merits." Developers Sur. & lndem. Co.'. Bi-Tech Const., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1320 (S.D. Fla. 2013); see, e.g., Baker. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 793 F.2d 1196 (11th Cir.1986) (Fed.R.Civ.P. I5(b) instructs district courts to grant leave to conform the pleadings to the evidence freely, provid

. . in the original pleading." Because the original petition in this case alleged that the Government violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this case would relate back to the date the petition was filed: July 7, 2008. This relation back eliminates any s

ement with Jeffrey Epstein and, if so, what crimes were covered. Accordingly, the petition generally alleged that, "[u]pon information and belief, [Epstein] is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal crimes he is

nt violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this

e entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-1 at 3 (emphasis added). This descriptio

action or defense on the merits." Developers Sur. & Indem. Co.' Bi-Tech Const., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1320 (S.D. Fla. 2013); see, e.g., Baker. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 793 F.2d 1196 (11th Cir.1986) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b) instructs district courts to grant leave to conform the pleadings to the evidence freely, provid

. . in the original pleading." Because the original petition in this case alleged that the Government violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this case would relate back to the date the petition was filed: July 7, 2008. This relation back eliminates any s

ement with Jeffrey Epstein and, if so, what crimes were covered. Accordingly, the petition generally alleged that, "[u]pon information and belief, [Epstein] is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal crimes he is

nt violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this

e entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-1 at 3 (emphasis added). This descriptio

n or defense on the merits." Developers Stir. & Indem. Co. v. Bi-Tech Const., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1320 (S.D. Fla. 2013); see, e.g., Baker v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 793 F.2d 1196 (11th Cir.1986) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b) instructs district courts to grant leave to conform the pleadings to the evidence freely, provid

. . in the original pleading." Because the original petition in this case alleged that the Government violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this case would relate back to the date the petition was filed: July 7, 2008. This relation back eliminates any s

ement with Jeffrey Epstein and, if so, what crimes were covered. Accordingly, the petition generally alleged that, "[u]pon information and belief, [Epstein] is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal crimes he is

nt violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this

e entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-1 at 3 (emphasis added). This descriptio

on or defense on the merits." Developers Sur. & lndem. Co. v. Bi-Tech Cons:., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1320 (S.D. Fla. 2013); see, e.g.. Baker v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 793 F.2d 11% (11th Cir.1986) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b) instructs district courts to grant leave to conform the pleadings to the evidence freely, provide