Epstein Secrets

s in LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893- CIV Marra/Johnson; deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, p. 23, line 4; p. 38, line 22. R. 809-10, citing amended complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scot

nt. The court rejected the Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." (R. 833-837). The Record Demonstrates Probable Cause for Epstein's Lawsuit In Goldstein v. Sabena, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious -15- EFTA0

B; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marra/Johnson. Rothstein returned to South Florida in

damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecutio

B; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893- CIV Marra/Johnson. Rothstein returned to South Florida in

damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecutio

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

United States Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-010846 EFTA00226088 UNITED STATES Cite as 706 Irwin, 654 F.2d 671, 678-79 (10th Cir.1981); also see Goldstein, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, 69 Yale L.J. 405, 454 (1959). The Irwin case is illustrative of the distinction between false statement