Epstein Secrets

LP Attorneys for Defendants Jeffery Epstein, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant Jeffery Epstein BY: DARREN K. INDYKE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00285631 I877DOEC APPEARANCES (Continued) HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Attorneys

ry Epstein, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant Jeffery Epstein BY:

, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant Jeffery Epstein BY:

ry Epstein, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant Jeffery Eps

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009). While the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the ten

9212 Ya-neeeed PA NZI.ING July 13th 2010 Mr. Darren K. Indyke VIA EMAIL (dkiesaftaol.com) Subject: Lit

ts for 01 40 10 35 10 GHRISTMN MRTHO0 thrihaefameells.panelmg row PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 2 EFTA00309212 Ya-neeeed PA NZI.ING July 13th 2010 Mr. Darren K. Indyke VIA EMAIL (dkiesaftaol.com) Subject: Little Saint James Office Woodwork - Color staining modification. Dear Mr. Indyke In answer to your email Mon

uly 13th 2010 Mr. Darren K. Indyke VIA EMAIL (dkiesaftaol.com) Subject: Little Saint James Office Woodwork - Color staining modification. Dear Mr. Indyke In answer to your email Monday, July 12, 2010, we confirm that during our last on site intervention of March 2010 we executed all the expected work

9212 Ya-neeeed PA NZI.ING July 13th 2010 Mr. Darren K. Indyke VIA EMAIL (dkiesaftaol.com) Subject: Litt

s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint with Points and Authorities should be denied in its entirety. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), Ashcroft v. !Oat 556 U.S. , 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210- 211 (3r° Cir. 2009) (quoting %bal. 129 S.O. at 1949-50), Sh

gage in sex activity. 16 EFTA00176551 f ( 4- C C EFTA00176552 City College UI NewYork INTERNATIONAL STUDIES PROGRAM Jeffrey Epstein do Darren Indyke Esq. 457 Madison Avenue — 14th Floor New York, N.Y. 10022. Dear Mr. Epstein, North Academic Center, Room 6/141 160 Convent Avenue New York, New Yo

IONAL STUDIES PROGRAM Jeffrey Epstein do Darren Indyke Esq. 457 Madison Avenue — 14th Floor New York,

NTERNATIONAL STUDIES PROGRAM Jeffrey Epstein do Darren Indyke Esq. 457 Madison Avenue — 14th Floor New

"constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Fjamers to ensure protection of our fundamental Id. at 552, quoting Gregory'. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The majority concluded that the statute before the Court "upsets the federal balance to a degree that renders it an unc

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungvs v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgralv. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel Coup., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

ungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) Landgraf v. US! Film Products, 148 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 27 Landgraf, 511 U.S 27, 30, 32 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 40 Lighte, 782 F.3d 120 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 98 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 59