Epstein Secrets

THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON, and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL July 18, 2008 STEVEN M. LARIMORF CLERK D.S. DIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. • MIAMI In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441

stroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court 2 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

133 17 01316 EFTA00234240 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 0721:2008 Page 18 of 100 DCA 1998) (approving reasoning in Feld & Sons, holding that "no public policy should allow [a plaintiff] to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct" where the plaintiff had

y jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court .3 Haley 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

against public policy"). Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else (= ) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct, 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damag

y jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court .3 Haley 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

are against public policy"). Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover dama