Epstein Secrets

mitted, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP By /s/ Michael Miller Justin Y.K. Chu Attorneys for Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN & To: FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Brad Edwards Attorney for Plaintiff Jane Doe 43 ALSTON & BIRD, LLP Alexander S Lorenzo John E. Stephenson, Jr. (Applic

By /s/ Michael Miller Justin Y.K. Chu Attorneys for Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN & To: FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Brad Edwards Attorney for Plaintiff Jane Doe 43 ALSTON & BIRD, LLP Alexander S Lorenzo John E. Stephenson, Jr. (Application for admission pro hac vice pend

re relaxed pleading standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). These two decisions set forth the basic requirements for pleading a claim. As explained and applied by the Second Circuit:

mim Michael C. Miller May 15, 2017 Brad Edwards, Esq. Re: v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Civil Action No. 17-cv-616 Dear Brad: Steptoe stenos • JOHNSON 1.0 In accordance with the Court's May 15,

mim Michael C. Miller May 15, 2017 Brad Edwards, Esq. Re: v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Civil Act

fendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Wood, 328 Fed.Appx. at 747 (quoting Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949). Here, at best, the Complaint merely parrots the statutory elements of a Section 1595 claim regarding fraud and coercion withou

Michael C. Miller 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York. NY 10036 main www.steploe.com May 2017 Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Re: Jane Doe 43 v. Je

Michael C. Miller 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York. NY 10036 main www.steploe.com May 2017 Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Re: Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffery Epstein, et al. Civil Action No.

fendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Wood, 328 Fed.Appx. at 747 (quoting Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949). Here, the Complaint merely parrots the statutory elements of a Section 1595 claim regarding fraud and coercion. As described i