Epstein Secrets

ack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 ounse or a en an s Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Bruce E. Reinhart. P.A. Shiolev, P A West Palm beach, FL 3340

a en an s Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Bruce Reinhart, Esq.

ars beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of

F on this 7th day of January, 2009: Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. th Lake Worth, FL 33461 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Search Denney Scarola Shipley, P.A. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. West Palm Beach, FL

rth, FL 33461 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Search Denney Scarola

ars beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46. 78 S.Ct. 99, 102. 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of

case. EFTA00175316 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 3 of 4 Respectfully submitted, /c/.lank P Hill JACK SCAROLA Florida Bar No. 169440 JACK P. HILL Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Wes

01h Avenue North Suite 404 L 33461 Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff I.M.A. reelrhwAhotmail.com Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard ach, FL 33409 Fax: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 A

ars beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November U , 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By: 42 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013360 --- PAGE BREAK -

ber U , 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By: 42 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013360 --- PAGE BREAK --- SERVICE LIST Christo

ion to dismiss, factual adjudication is inappropriate as all facts asserted—or here, reasonably established—by the plaintiff are to be taken as true. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, at 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, at 101-102, 2 L.Ed. 2d 80, -1581 at 84.-As such, the court-has given recognition only to those assert