Epstein Secrets

Rcpnrini; and Transtrirum. lu 1 2 3 Page 4 Deposition taken before Judith F. Consor, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of FlDrida at Large, in the above cause. 4 - - - 5 Thereupon, 6 7 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined a and testified as follows: 9

9-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Intervenor's Complaint, at ¶ 2 (filed by "Jane Doe's Mother" and stating that "Jane Doe's Mother is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia."). DE 5-2, Jane Doe No. I v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Petition for Removal of Disability of Non-Age, at ¶¶ 1, 2. 7 (filed "

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

9-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Intervenor's Complaint, at ¶ 2 (filed by "Jane Doe's Mother" and stating that "Jane Doe's Mother is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia."), DE 5-2, Jane Doe No. I v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Petition for Removal of Disability of Non-Age, at ¶¶ I, 2, 7 (filed "

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

9-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Intervenor's Complaint, at ¶ 2 (filed by "Jane Doe's Mother" and stating that "Jane Doe's Mother is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia."), I)E 5-2, Jane Doe No. I v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Petition for Removal of Disability of Non-Age, at ¶¶ 1, 2, 7 (filed

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