Epstein Secrets

e deposition testimony of Plaintiff attached to her response details JANE DOE's version of what occurred between EPSTEIN and her when she was at his Palm Beach mansion. See depo. pages 539 — 600. JANE DOE, when examined by her own attorney, testified that she was brought to the mansion by i on her first vi

endant's Motion, Discussion of Law, Part I, pp. 8-19. 8. Like EPSTEIN, Plaintiff also cites on the United States Supreme Court case of Landgraf v. USI Film Products , 511 U.S. 244, 280, (1994), as a landmark decision in determining whether or not a statute violates constitutional principles against retroactivi

uld pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. 13. Defendant designed this scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's Palm Beach mansion where only persons employed and invited by Defendant would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse a

t that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landgraf USI Film Products supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to

uld pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. 13. Defendant designed this scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's Palm Beach mansion where only persons employed and invited by Defendant would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse a

t that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. landgraf USI Film Products supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to

uld pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. 13. Defendant designed this scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's Palm Beach mansion where only persons employed and invited by Defendant would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse a

t that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landgraf USI Film Products supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to