Epstein Secrets

in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, had ruled him ineligible, a decision Trump vigorously appealed. The article noted that the court's deferment came as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider a similar 14th Amendment challenge to Trump out of Colorado, with oral arguments scheduled for Feb. 8, emphasizing the significa

01/17, Pengelly). EFTA00160264 The 'Sleeping Giant' Case that Could Upend Jack Smith's Prosecution of Trump Politico (01/17, Wehle) reported that the Supreme Court's decision to hear Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, a case questioning the use of a 2002 law (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) in prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants,

s. Additional reporting on the story was provided by The Independent (01/17, Graziosi), New York Post (01/17, Christenson), The Daily Beast (01/17, Olmstead), Axios (01/17, Solender), Fax News (01/17, Elkind), New York Times (01/17, Karni), The Hill (01/17, Schnell), Forbes (01/17, Dorn), HuffPost (01/17

e attackers, never had any communication with the attackers, and never paid anything to meet any sort of demand. According to the article, the state Supreme Court's chief justice, Debra Todd, said a federal investigation was continuing. Neither the courts nor the FBI or the federal government's lead cybersecurit

Court as It Prepares to Rule on Presidential Immunity The Washington Examiner (02/15, Deese) reported that former President Donald Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to pause his trial over 2020 election subversion charges, asserting that former presidents should have immunity for actions taken in office

C (02/15, Debusmann Jr.), New York Times (02/15, Rogers, Demirjian), Forbes (02/15, Hart), Daily Mail (02/15, Robinson), and The Daily Beast (02/15, Olmstead). District Attorney in Trump's Georgia Case Pushes Back: 'I'm Not on Trial' The Associated Press (02/15, Brumback, Richer) reported that Fulton Cou

be incompatible with the purpose of the FSIA, which is to grant governmental, not private corporate immunity, and ... would reflect infidelity to the Supreme Court's reasoning in Dole Food" Id. at 218. Accordingly, it reiterated that "'a subsidiary of an instrumentality is not it- self entitled to instrumentalit

t or a lawful act performed in an unlawful man- ner." N.Y. State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F2d 1339, 1361 (2d Cir.1989) (citing hancic v. Olmstead, 66 N.Y2d 349, 352, 497 N.Y.S.2d 326, 488 N.E.2d 72 (1985)). To the extent that the Federal Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that Defen- dants acted

upport of this argument, the Federal Plaintiffs cite Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that instrumentality status is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint. has specifically addressed the issue. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01

ct or a lawful act performed in an unlawful man- ner.” N.Y. State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1839, 1361 (2d Cir.1989) (citing Ivancic v. Olmstead, 66 N.Y.2d 349, 352, 497 N.Y.S.2d 326, 488 N.E.2d 72 (1985)). To the extent that the Federal Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that Defen- dants acted in