Epstein Secrets

RN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEI

Dismiss, and states as follows: Plaintiff's Memorandum contains a typographical error on page four. The last sentence of the quote from Hammers v. Internal Revenue Service, 988 F.2d 32 (5th Cir. 1993) on the top of page four reads "We may not look beyond them when, taken as a whole, they are rational and ambiguous," w

RN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEI

te federal criminal statutes. The underlying approach to statutory construction was succinctly set forth in the Fifth Circuit decision in Hammers v. Internal Revenue Service, 988 F.2d 32 (51h Cir. 1993): The sole purpose of statutory construction, including, when appropriate, a review of all available legislative histo

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs

deral Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of a

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs

deral Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of a

[email protected] 4/23/2007 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-010286 EFTA00226083 Abefikcizi ike,vuti /ac

5,200 in cashier's checks as a number of smaller cash purchas- es, each being less than $10,000. Tobon's purpose for doing this was to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from learning about the large sum of cash he purportedly won gambling. Tobon's main contention on this appeal is that he could not have violat- ed