Epstein Secrets

vest the district court of its ongoing authority under Rule 23(c)(1)(C) to monitor the class and make changes when appropriate. See Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1273 (11th Or. 2000) ( (FIN4) 'Class certification orders . . . are not final judgments impervious to lower court review and revisio

king wise decisions in the face of uncertainty." W. Alen Walis & Harry V. Roberts. The Nature of Stat

d at 821 (holding that party represented by same counsel had "essentially abandoned" argument by making only a "conclusory challenge"); Anderson v. Cagle's, Inc., 488 F.3d 945, 959 (11th Cir. 2007) (same). The "purpose" of the preservation rule is also not served by overlooking Plaintiffs' waiver. Se

l vaous lesedprly ionen %toch we bebos. to be 'A.W., ba no do not warmte thee « array -We graai 1/4

scription ot the alternative investment objectives in important inbrmation about your statement at the end of this document. Your wens objective: Cagle' appreciation Your Ask profile: Pnmary • Moderate limestmem eigailily ccavaderauon hl,ne selected 71,382 71,382 Your account instructions • Yo

dng nlarnation Iran atta few or ha you may hate W./kW 10 your Nast Mew the firm does not independen

separate tax lot. Cost IMPS is the tow purchase cost of the security. indudng *livered d vidends The cost basis mar need lobe adusted for return of Cagle payments in order 10 determine the actusted cost Ots tor tax report no purposes. Unrealized (tad gas or loss 6 the °defence between the anent value

W eke tenet Itm pig is w I :KVYk. Ix ;rot*** Z W. DIA•Tell ER IIVICHIG IT I OillimatelitS • • pm

M ._s__ •••0 I.060 sea •U Olarttl ••MM. in SISTRACTINI PM ISSN LH es • Ilse I 400 Afters wt % 0505 ': I. me snow tan.t Seel MOM. Tall Ilvo•9k ll Cagle •Mkil••00 Nam t ins 5 aiee Seoul Fells • ran. ulte, Wes •• calm wed MetalsOW corr.' Use nlineebeei ten I ;CM to why follan. MR* I Pan SIN 711110

However, the Plaintiff fails to discuss meaningfully the statute at issue or provide any authority relating to the claim Plaintiff seeks to assert. (W.) E. Negligence, wantonness and breach of fiduciary duty claims against BIC (Counts VIII-XI). BIC argues that the Plaintiffs negligence, wantonness

14-16.) 12 As aleged. the facts at issue were clearly material. "A material fact is one which would induce the plaintiff to take action." Lawson v. Cagle. 504 So. 2d 226, 227 (Ala. 1987) (citing Bank of Red Bay v. King. 482 So. 2d 274. 282 (Ala. 1985)). and the Plaintiff alleges that BIC's misrepresen

I ea:1 ye. app 20 A. 21 0- en i's going to tot YOU • Ls 22 Oolstions. msso, gaisttoes ted.y. If at any alma you 23 ..44.4 to talc. • break. W. rut lot.. •••••• Mai? 24 A. 25 0. If you at cay tine don't understood on. of Ph fax. 1655 PS Beach lace, Ohl.. Sute 913 • Wen GOVERNMENT E

ssociates .„,........—~- Peg* 111 2101 WITIMSS, Never -- at did yew say/ 2 IT M. TCIM: 3 O. You lied agen you went to the creak Muse 4 in Cagle, didn't you? S NA. LIC4014)! OblectIon. Arounentstlwe. 6 Lac of tom:dance, lack of predicate. OP M. TOM: I O. You an ansar the nestle'. 9 A

.SW/L III Eng Kaki an Ina Ice Eh lesslamer. B.W. Poetess Int.CW Info La Ca. Com Rya FO IAT Ra

one of rho User> asset luicibre: Admin. Civil Judklal, or Criminal Do not Incicare S vela In Section D M. Aceulualf Dismissal/ Protial Diversion (Cagle one) Omit E. Nostages(e) Released Date• Released by: 0 Totraim 0 OM& Number ea Hostages: I. DisruplIondlismandrarant / Disruption Dale: Dsmonll

O .1001 = ;/.0 AWL ANT ill4 MM II X0/001 Anne W. imam. MAI It* map; wkly ...sty--3.0.,.. 316."

.1 Ø 11:1 2014N1 11 t tu E E M cn C*4 7.cingukr.- ~wireless DETAIL OF CURRENT ACTIVITY - CONTINUED VOICE USAGE FOR- Colima, Any Chad,. Cagle . Mad MS ~MN INCOMN3 MOM mm To mMIL 4w- L-- 1" .,,,,,,wQ uNmi MOM MKR L ?X 3C0 AWL AMMICIAN Want" TONDO. KEW MESSAGE MTKOMAI INPAIMM