Epstein Secrets

ms. The victims made two principal arguments for dismissal: first, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc.'. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (attorney-client privilege ruling not immediately appealable; any inj

davit." Doc. #98 at 3-4 (emphasis added) (quoting El-Ad Residences at Mirarmar Condo. Ass'n, Inc.. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 716 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1262 (S.D. Ha. 2010). Rather than heed that specific warning from the Government that he needed to provide "evidence that demonstrates the existence of the privi

U.S. v. Ng Lap Seng is a clear win for the Justice Department and marks the first time that a circuit court has applied the official act rule, which the U.S. Supreme Court established in McDonnell v. U.S., to the FCPA. "People on the defense side of FCPA cases have long felt that the agencies have taken a tremendously

the briefing remains sealed, the decision of District Judge Kenneth E. Marra denying the motion, Doe v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1266 (S.D. Ha. 2013), reveals that the government argued the victims did not have standing because the relief they sought—the vacation or rescission of the non-pr

ecords, which the Court held "must remain inviolate." Id. at 17. By its terms, Rule 2.420 does not apply to criminal cases; however, later this year the Supreme Court will consider amendments to the rule that essentially seek to apply the standards applicable in civil cases to criminal ones. See In re Amendments t

oe No. 71. Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 6'. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe II Epstein, Case No. 09-80469 (S.D. Ha. 2009); Doe No. 101 Epstein, Case No. 09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 102'. Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 81. Epstein, C