Epstein Secrets

tiff C.M.A. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 ounse or a en an s Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Bruce E. Reinhart. P.A. Shiolev, P A West Palm

ounse or a en an s Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Bruce Re

ity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

te would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United

ES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON CAROLYN MARGARET ANDRIANO Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will take the deposition duces tecum of: DEPONENT Sus

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen .=__,;;=-------- ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. F

ity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein. et al. Page 2 50 2008CA020614 MBAF, Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein, and Sarah Kellen, (hereinafter "state action"). In attempting to allege a claim under 18 U.S.C. §2255, Plaintiff improperly relies on the §2255, as amended, effect

ENDNOTES: 1 In paragraph 11 of her Complaint, Jane Doe II alleges that — "From about June, 2003 until about February, 2005, Defendants, EPSTEIN and KELLEN persuaded, induced, or EFTA00222839 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 28 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein,

9-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 24 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 24 Plaintiff's view. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous