Epstein Secrets

se61217761C0MISAMAI t NadiaKt BOO 2 ir WIE621116121Ignci% Cif 8616 Light of the Coronavirus Outbreak, 20-MC-00004-9 (D.N.M. Mar. 13, 2020) (Johnson, C.J.). Almost a full year later, jury trials remain suspended in the District of New Mexico. See In the Matter of: Superseding Administrative Order 20-M

the District of New Mexico. See In the Matter of: Superseding Administrative Order 20-MC-00004-49, 21-MC-00004-04 (D.N.M. Jan. 15, 2021) (Johnson, C.J.) (continuing the suspension of all civil and criminal jury trials through at least February 28, 2021). In the intervening 11 months, Mr. Robertson

not prevent flight; at best, it limits a fleeing defendant's head start." United States v. Zarger, No. 00- CR-773-S-1 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at •1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000). Furthermore, while the Defendant now represents that she would be released to the custody of a family member, who would serve as the

BPOENA x C 19 Misc. 149 (CM) SEALED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER McMahon, C.J.: The Government has filed an application for modification of a March 18, 2016 pretrial protective order, entered by the late Hon. in a civil defam

ranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at *4 14 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00000888 EFTA 00114972 EFTA01263259 To Be Filed Under Seal (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) (order was not improvidently granted where "parties were concerned about exchanging commercially sensitive material with their direct

ealth Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003)). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages). 2 Chapter 800, Florida

nly reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government's criminal investigation of the defendants a

(B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court c

d Victim 4's ability to testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also Hernandez v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must "bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately recol

BPOENA x C 19 Misc. 149 (CM) SEALED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER McMahon, C.J.: The Government has filed an application for modification of a March 18, 2016 pretrial protective order, entered by the late Hon. Robert W. Sweet i

FragranceNetcom, Inc. v. Fragrancel.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at •4 14 SDNY_GM_00000888 EFTA00086699 To Be Filed Under Seal (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) (order was not improvidently granted where "parties were concerned about exchanging commercially sensitive material with their direct

(B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court c

d Victim 4's ability to testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also Hernandez v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must "bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately recol

(B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court c

d Victim 4's ability to testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also Hernandez v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must "bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately recol

ancola, 4 F.2d 8 Pofin, Nos. 85-5009, 85-5010, slip op. at (11th Cir.1985 ; see also United States (4th Cir. March 4, 1985) (opinion of Mumaghan, C.J., as a single circuit judge). In this case the majority, adopting the reas- oning of both the nuird and Eleventh Cir- cuits, rewrites the statutory p

fendant on appeal following a conviction is a matter of * pro- cedure and does not bearylin live rights."); United States 598 F.Supp. 453, 468 (S.D.N. 9 mo- tion to revoke bail) ("[Defendant's] entitle- ment to bail, and the criteria by which that entitlement will be measured, constitute 'modes