Epstein Secrets

istrate Judgment VI. RELATED/RE-FILED CASE(S). (See IMIniCliole second pale): a) Re-filed Case 0 YES 473 NO b) Related Cases 01 YES ONO JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra DOCKET NUMBER See Attached. VII. CAUSE OF ACTION Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do n

NO b) Related Cases 01 YES ONO JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra DOCKET NUMBER See Attached. VII. CAUSE OF ACTIO

where it was not 'sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' Connally General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322. We have recognized in such cases that 'a statute which either forbids or r

ions to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/22/2009 15 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruc

No. 102 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Member case: (View

where it was not 'sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322. We have recognized in such cases that 'a statute which either forbids or

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. EPSTEIN and D

where it was not 'sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322. We have recognized in such cases that 'a statute which either forbids or

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff; v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defend

where it was not `sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.O. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322. We have recognized in such cases that `a statute which either forbids or

utory text.2 See also this Court's recent orders on motions to dismiss in other actions filed against EPSTEIN by "Jane Does," Case Nos: 08-CV-80119- MARRA/JOHNSON; 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON; and 08-CV-80380-MARRA- JOHNSON; requiring sufficient allegations of predicate acts. A reading of §2422(b) shows

where it was not `sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322. We have recognized in such cases that 'a statute which either forbids or