Epstein Secrets

) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual a

circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action in favor of the first filed state action. See American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990). The exceptional circumstances test is set forth in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1 (198

n FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al Page 4 presumptively competent to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States.'" Id, and cases cited therein. Significantly, in order to give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over a federal cause of action, Congress must,

sdiction. Id.' Because concurrent jurisdiction exists over this federal claim, the six factor analysis as discussed in American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir. 1990), applies in determining whether the exceptional circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action i

. (See Reply at 2.) However, in general, "oUr-of-court statements that are offered as evidence of legally operative verbal conduct are not hearsay.' United States v. Pang. 362 F.3d 1187. 1192 (9th Cir. 2004). Because such statements have independent legal significance. they are considered "verbal acts," and ar

ledge. Ellis. 409 F. Supp. at 1158 (citing Jackson Co. v. Faulkner. 55 Ala. App. 354. 315 So. 2d 591 (1975)). First Ala. Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Ins. Co., 899 F.2d 1045, 1059 (11th Cir. 1990). 19 Jim Walter Homes and Jim Short Ford Sales were overruled on other grounds by State Farm Fire and Casualty

itle 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government. 33. Specifically, Defendant Epstein: (a) knowin

cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier cl