Epstein Secrets

depositions in the State of Florida, the Plaintiffs will, upon oral examination, take the deposition of the following named via telephone, to wit: HALEY ROBSON COURTNEY WILDE & Such oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. You are hereby notified to phone in and take part in said exa

Ulltd girls oda-usably to give a wealthy was a 111913^,4„it em mammy odinpensztice in Ins Palm Beadi mansion. Utelti Epitein's planretiltlpfiSe. M9. Robson was coreacted dmetly befoge or soon alley Epstein way a le* Palm Beal residence. Epstein KeCca ri-ertalltea Went: 0r, lee: Page 2 of 9 07/26/1

nstant messenger: Thoughts First Waking Up: Your Best Physical Feature: Your Bedtime: Your Most Missed Memory: Pepsi or Coke: MacDonalds or Burger King: Single or Group Dates: Lipton Ice Tea or Nestea: Chocolate or Vanilla: Cappuccino or Coffee: Do you Smoke: Do you Swear: Do you Sing: Do yo

nt messenger: Thoughts First Waking Up: Your Best Physical Feature: Your Bedtime: Your Most Missed Memory: Pepsi or Coke: MacDonalds or Burger King: Single or Group Dates: Upton Ice Tea or Nestea: Chocolate or Vanilla: Cappuccino or Coffee: Do you Smoke: Do you Swear: Do you Sing: Do

y with more and more on each massage". s ed Epstein would try to touch her more and on one occasion he attempted to use a massager/vibrator on her. Robson drove to the house for the original massage. . left Sarah her cell phone number and every time Epstein would come into town, Sarah would call her

ogram: CMS301L ase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) Center from Cingular Wireless for telephone number 561-308-0282. This was the telly number for Haley Robson during the time frame when the victim, was brought to the Epstein house to "work." An analysis of the phone records, of all incoming and outgoi

in- strumentalities in federal court. Argen- tine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 439, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989); Robinson v. Gov't of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133, 188 (2d Cir.2001). Federal courts must inquire at the “threshold of every action” against a for- eign state wheth

rocess requirements. Plaintiffs claim these requirements are met because De- fendants purposefully directed their activi- ties at the United States. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 479, 105 8.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (explain- ing jurisdiction is appropriate if defendant “purposefully dire

he FSIA, a foreign state and its instrumentalities are presumed immune from this Court’s jurisdiction unless one of the statute’s exceptions applies. Robinson v. Gov't of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir.2001). “In contrast to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, in a challenge

ed States. The minimum contacts requirement is satisfied “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at the residents of the forum.” Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Foreseeability is not enough, there must be “some act by which the defendant