Epstein Secrets

to so participate, through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4). 42. Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein's and Sarah Kellen's enterprise included, at a minimum, a group of individuals associated in fact to assist Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in recruiting and procuring mino

z. r 1 1-1 2O - z) JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, C N Lc; •74 > -41, 1 n -< 73 i Defendants

action,11 but, as previously explained, there is no civil cause of action under the CVRA. The CVRA II Notably, Petitioner quoted from the dissent in Intracoastal Transp., Inc. v. Decatur County, 482 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1973); the majority actually held that the act it was considering created no private cause of acti

to so participate, through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4). 42. Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein's and Sarah Kellen's enterprise included, at a minimum, a group of individuals associated in fact to assist Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in recruiting and procuring mino

z. r 1 1-1 2O - z) JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, C N Lc; •74 > -41, 1 n -< 73 i Defendants

action,11 but, as previously explained, there is no civil cause of action under the CVRA. The CVRA II Notably, Petitioner quoted from the dissent in Intracoastal Transp., Inc. v. Decatur County, 482 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1973); the majority actually held that the act it was considering created no private cause of acti

to so participate, through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4). 42. Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein's and Sarah Kellen's enterprise included, at a minimum, a group of individuals associated in fact to assist Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in recruiting and procuring mino

B AD Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. . 91 c. C AMENDED COMPLAINT 61

of action?' but, as previously explained, there is no civil cause of action under the CVRA. The CVRA Notably, Petitioner quoted from the dissent in Intracoastal Transp., Inc. v. Decatur County, 482 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1973); the majority actually held that the act it was considering created no private cause of acti