Epstein Secrets

7NG SERVICE, INC. . - 7 S11,17i-i995 1431Sel'OnlileicliRep—mtinie.ac EFTA00617921 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 case is pending before Judge Marra. And one of the threshold issues in that case was whether victims rights attach prior to the filing of a federal indictment. And Judge Marra ruled

0 11 12 13 14 15 16 case is pending before Judge Marra. And one of the threshold issues in that case wa

forever. And there is no reference to what the remedies would be. So under the guidance of Schwartzle, the criteria that had been laid out by the Fourth DCA have clearly not been met. That's defect Number 1 in the confidentiality provision. Defect Number 2 is that obviously because this confidentialit

asked about whether there is any appellate authority that assists the Court in addressing this issue, and the answer to that question is there is Fourth DCA precedent that is in fact very directly on point. PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 561-471-2995 PJW@PalTseacWPotftscp EFTA00617917 12 1 2

being taken advantage of. Taken advantage of through the forging of an order -- forging of an order that purported to have the signature of Judge Marra -- a tremendously well-respected jurist in this community, now taken senior status. I, meaning Mr. Epstein, was not only concerned about Rothstei

an order that purported to have the signature of Judge Marra -- a tremendously well-respected jurist in this

ck is a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792856 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fourth DCA decision called Frazier versus Security and Investments, 1993. What does Frazier tell us? Not only do we build off the US Supreme Court and say yo

OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defend

nderlying wrong of continued childhood sexual abuse brought against the Archdiocese did not allow for recovery under RICO). Finally, even Florida's Fourth DCA confirms that in order to have a claim for RICO, there must be damage to "business or property." Petrol. LTD. v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th