Epstein Secrets

any. That company, which Hoffenberg had by then in- corporated, was Stratford. Hoffenberg made Myna president of Stratford, and Gene Sherman ("Sherman"), Hoffenberg's uncle, vice-president. At DCC, Sherman had blank checks available for Hof- fenberg and put up the money to start Her New York and h

porated, was Stratford. Hoffenberg made Myna president of Stratford, and Gene Sherman ("Sherman"), Hoffenberg's uncle, vice-president. At DCC, Sherman had blank checks available for Hof- fenberg and put up the money to start Her New York and had made payments on Hoffenberg's apartment and boat mor

t 1313. Hoffenberg suggests that United States v. Leonard, 50 F.3d 1152, 1158 (2d Cir.I995), suggests a high- er standard of proof. In Leonard, the Second Circuit instructed that "the district court should consider any evidence with a significant degree of probative value, and should rest its finding on evid

f conditional leniency to Stolt- Nielsen on March 2, 2004, and announced that it intended to indict the Company and Wingfield for violations of the Sherman Act.I I. Although the Government "charged" Wing- field by criminal complaint in June 2003. it could not prosecute him without an indict- ment. See

ers, Inc., Petitioners-Ap- pellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. No. 474, Docket 95-6119. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Aug. 81, 1996. Decided Oct. 17, 1996. Government appealed from order en- tered in the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri

, 211, 8 L S.Ct. 482, 488, Eil. 402; & Ear- n= Mfg. Co. City of Los ngelcs, 189 U.S. 207, 23 S. t. 41 -17 LEd. 778; Hy. grade Provision Co. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 500, 45 S.Ct. 141, 69 L.Ed. 402. No citizen or member of the community is im- mune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged

ates and could not be held liable for misdelivery of goods. BROOKS v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. PO. 199, Docket 21917. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued March 13, 1951. Decided March 28,1951. John R. Brooks brought an action against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for We- delivery of goo

s, Justice Dept., Washington Post, February 21, 2007 (http://www.washingtonpost.cotn/svp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001344.html) 16. A Sherman, Mark, "Berger Pleads Guilty to Taking Materials" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bintarticle.cgi? f=/n/a/2005/04/01/national/w111624S64.DTL), Associated

f- fense, which applies? United States, ev rel. Harris' Daniels, 279 Fed. 844 (2nd Cir.I992), provides guidance on this issue. In Ex. rel. Harris, the Second Circuit was faced with a potential conflict between two senten- cing provisions, one which permitted " 'all sen- tences' of summary court-martial [to] be ca