Epstein Secrets

2'2009 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant's, Epstein. Motion To Dismiss, For More Definite Statement & To Strike Directed To Plaintiff Jane Doe's Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff. . .was called on the telephone by. . .Epstein and other employees. . ., and transported to. . .

Florida Civil Rico action is, at this time, only defendant Epstein. . . ." However, the RICO enterprise must be dis

.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant's, Epstein. Moti

siness Ventures. Inc. v. Second Chance Wholesale. Inc. 784 Sold 1194, 1195, n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001X"Florida courts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute... "). Applying the above law with the cases cited infra, it is clear

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, For More Definite Statement & To Strike Directed To Plaintiff Jane Do

as requested. Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. As to Count II, Plaintiff conceded in her opposition motion that Epstein correctly argued that punitive damages EFTA00729110 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 2 are not recoverable under 18 U.S.C. §2255. Therefore Plaintiff "ag

.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein

d)); RLS Business Ventures, IfladutmgMaglesgiug a al 784 So.2d 1194, 1195, n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001X"Florida courts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute. . . "); Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, EFTA00729113 Do

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, For More Definite Statement & To Strike Directed To Plaintiff Jane Do

as requested. Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. As to Count II, Plaintiff conceded in her opposition motion that Epstein correctly argued that punitive damages EFTA00729105 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 2 are not recoverable under 18 U.S.C. §2255. Therefore Plaintiff "ag

.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein

d)); RLS Business Ventures, IfladutmgMaglesgiug a al 784 So.2d 1194, 1195, n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001X"Florida courts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute. . . "); Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, EFTA00729108 Do