Epstein Secrets

t forth, above, this case lacks merit and should be dismissed no matter where it is filed. Having said that, and as you know, Epstein resides in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the court has personal jurisdiction over him. Moreover, the other Defendants are all located in states other than New York and no significant

menced until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the FAC occurred. Plaintiff's claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation

t forth, above, this case lacks merit and should be dismissed no matter where it is filed. Having said that, and as you know, Epstein resides in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the court has personal jurisdiction over him. Moreover, the other Defendants are all located in states other than New York and no significant

d until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred. Plaintiffs claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation

der to coerce the plaintiff into compliance. Amended complaint paragraph 48 and 50. For example, while being transported to Epstein's island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Epstein, Maxwell, and took possession of the plaintiff's passport in order to coerce her to comply with their demands, including their demands th

that analysis has been applied to conclude that the ten year statute of limitations applies. We cited a case out of the District of Minnesota, the Abarca case, that takes a different view, and the thinking in the Abarca case -- which we think is the correct thinking -- THE COURT: So far the thinking