Epstein Secrets

that if you did this 5 every weekend you'd be rich, didn't you? 6 A. No. That's what told me. Y

cument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07121:2008 Page 6 of 100 1. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. This case is a duplicate of the First Federal Lawsuit. In that case, Jane Doe pled "damages in excess of $50 million." See Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008) (Compl. 1 6).

IIII that if you did this every weekend you'd be rich, didn't you? A. No. That's what told me. Q.

cument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 6 of 100 1. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. This case is a duplicate of the First Federal Lawsuit. In that case, Jane Doe pled "damages in excess of $50 million." See Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008) (Compl. ¶ 6).

to that if you did this every weekend you'd be rich, didn't you? A. No. That's what told me. Q.

cument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 6 of 100 1. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. This case is a duplicate of the First Federal Lawsuit. In that case, Jane Doe pled "damages in excess of $50 million." See Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80069-ICAM (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008) (Compl. ¶ 6)

that if you did this 5 every weekend you'd be rich, didn't you? 6 A. No. That's what Lold me. 7

cument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 6 of 100 I. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. This case is a duplicate of the First Federal Lawsuit. In that case, Jane Doe pled "damages in excess of $50 million." See Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008) (Compl. ¶ 6).