Epstein Secrets

the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 Miami,

ff has exercised diligence and good faith in attempting to serve Defendant Epstein with process. Accordingly, entry of default is appropriate.”). The Eleventh Circuit is clear, however, that “actual notice of a suit does not dispose of the requirements of service of process.” Jackson v. Warden, FCC Coleman-USP,

nsel of record identified below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein,

s.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state

torney for Respondent ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile transmission and U.S. Mail, this( day of July, 2008, to: Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC, (954) 924-1530, 2028 Street, Suite 202, Holl

njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One District Court within the Eleventh Circuit recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirlind a stay in a case . . . where . . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Do