Epstein Secrets

lly going on." Jane Doe No. 3 Aff. at 5-6. Compounding the confusion that the Government created through its letter, in 2011 FBI agents traveled to Sydney to interview Jane Doe No. 3. During that interview, they discussed her sexual abuse in Florida, giving the impression that criminal charges could st

in the victim class alleged at the outset of this case. The courts have readily allowed relation back in such circumstances. See, e.g., Pasludy v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 1210, 1211 (7th Cir. 1981) (where "the original complaint alleged that defendant engaged in practices that discriminated against women bec

lly going on." Jane Doe No. 3 Aff. at 5-6. Compounding the confusion that the Government created through its letter, in 2011 FBI agents traveled to Sydney to interview Jane Doe No. 3. During that interview, they discussed her sexual abuse in Florida, giving the impression that criminal charges could st

in the victim class alleged at the outset of this case. The courts have readily allowed relation back in such circumstances. See, e.g., Paskuly v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 1210, 1211 (7th Cir. 1981) (where "the original complaint alleged that defendant engaged in practices that discriminated against women bec

lly going on." Jane Doe No. 3 Aff. at 5-6. Compounding the confusion that the Government created through its letter, in 2011 FBI agents traveled to Sydney to interview Jane Doe No. 3. During that interview, they discussed her sexual abuse in Florida, giving the impression that criminal charges could st

e in the victim class alleged at the outset of this case. The courts have readily allowed relation back in such circumstances. See, e.g., Paskulyl. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 1210, 1211 (7th Cir. 1981) (where "the original complaint alleged that defendant engaged in practices that discriminated against women bec